Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. This revision petition has been directed against the judgment and order dated 18-5-1990, passed by the learned JMIC, Dhuri, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 16 of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein-after referred to as the Act) and was sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default whereof to undergo further RI for one month, as well as against the judgment dated 22-2-1992, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby the petitioners appeal against the above mentioned judgment and order dated 18-5-1990 was dismissed. 2. On March 24, 1988 at 10.30 a.m. Dr. Pardeep Kuniar (the complainant) along with Dr. Surjit Singh was present near Sherpur-Dhuri bye-pass. They intercepted the petitioner when he was coming on bicycle with a drum containing 50 liters of mixed milk for sale for human consumption. After dis-closing his identity as Food Inspector, Dr. Pardeep Kumar served the petitioner with a notice (Exhibit PA) and purchased 750 millliters of mixed milk after making the same homogenous in the presence of wit-ness. The sample was divided into three equal parts and each part was put into separate dry and clean bottles. The samples were sealed as per the prescribed procedure and were taken into possession vide memo Ex, PC, also duly attested by Dr. Surjit Singh. The sealed samples were sent to the Public Analyst and upon receipt of his report Ex. PD, in terms whereof the sample was found to be substandard being deficient in milk solids, not fat by 15%, that the complaint in question was instituted. A copy of the report of the Public Analyst was also sent to the petitioner. The petitioner was summoned and thereafter vide order dated 15-9-1989, he was charge-sheeted for having violated the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. 3. In support of the charge against the petitioner, the complainant-Food Inspector stepped into the witness box (P.W. 1) and also examined Sri Krishan {P.W. 2) and Dr. Surjit Singh (P.W. 3) apart from relying upon the documents including the report of the Public Analyst (Ex. PD). The petitioner also led his defence evidence and examined Deepa (D.W. 1) and Jaspal Singh (D.W. 2). 4. Surjit Singh (P.W. 3) apart from relying upon the documents including the report of the Public Analyst (Ex. PD). The petitioner also led his defence evidence and examined Deepa (D.W. 1) and Jaspal Singh (D.W. 2). 4. Relying upon the prosecution evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate held the petitioner guilty of selling milk for human consumption which was found deficient in milk solids not fat by 15% of the minimum prescribed standard. The defence pleas taken by the petitioner, namely, (i) the milk was not for selling in open market and was being taken by him to his nephews house for the purpose of Akhand Path; (ii) the Food Inspector was not competent to institute the complaint for want of valid delegation; and/ or (iii) the milk sample was not taken after properly stirring it with a metallic rod by making it homogenous, were turned down. The learned Judicial Magistrate also discarded the version of defence witnesses and held the petitioner guilty under Section 16 of the Act. Before the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner reiterated the above stated pleas and further argued that no in-dependent witness was joined by the complainant at the time of taking the sample though the same were available and as such of Section 10(7) of the Act was violated. The aforesaid additional submission, however, was turned down by the learned Sessions Judge for the reason that the complainant has categorically deposed that the independent witness, though available, refused to join and co-operate with him. The learned Sessions Judge observed that neither the complainant nor Dr. Surjit Singh (P.W. 3) had any animosity to falsely depose against the petitioner. The contention that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner because of delay in sending a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was also rejected for the reason that an application moved by the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate for sending the second part of the sample for re-analysis was got dismissed as withdrawn by him on 4-1-1989 by making an unconditional statement in the Court. The petitioners appeal was accordingly dismissed. 5. This criminal revision petition was admitted on 26-2-1992 and thereafter vide an order dated 5-3-1992 the sentence and recovery of fine imposed upon the petitioner by the Courts below, were ordered to be suspended and he was directed to be released on bail. 6. The petitioners appeal was accordingly dismissed. 5. This criminal revision petition was admitted on 26-2-1992 and thereafter vide an order dated 5-3-1992 the sentence and recovery of fine imposed upon the petitioner by the Courts below, were ordered to be suspended and he was directed to be released on bail. 6. It may also be mentioned here that records of the Courts below were summoned by the Registry of this Court vide letter dated 29-11-2004. However, vide his reply dated 9-12-2004, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur informed that as per Rule 13(3) of Chapter XVI E of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders Vol. IV, the original records of tills case have been destroyed vide order dated 8-8-2003. The aforesaid rules, however, in unequivocal terms provide that the original records cannot be destroyed so long as an appeal/revision etc. is pending adjudication. The Registry was accordingly directed to find out as to whether or not the pendency of this revision petition was coveyed to the Courts be-low. It has been reported that a copy of the interim order dated 5-3-1992 whereby the sentence and fine imposed upon the petitioner was suspended and he was directed to be released on bail was duly conveyed to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur on 6-3-1992. In these circum-stances and in the absence of the original records, learned Counsel for the parties were requested to supply photostat copies of the records of the Courts below if, available with them and in response thereto learned Counsel for the petitioner has handed over translated version of the statement of the prosecution witnesses apart from (i) report of the Public Analyst, (ii) photostat copy of the com-plaint under Section 16 of the Act, (iii) order dated 15-9-1989 whereby charges were framed against the petitioner as well as (iv) photostat copies of documents Exhibits PA, PB, PC, PD, PE and PG. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the aforementioned record supplied by learned Counsel for the petitioner. 8. Manifold submissions have been made by Sh. Rattan, learned Counsel for the petitioner. It was contended that the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the petitioner after a delay of six months inasmuch as the sample was examined by the Public Analyst on 26-4-1988 whereas its report was sent to the petitioner on 12-10-1988. 8. Manifold submissions have been made by Sh. Rattan, learned Counsel for the petitioner. It was contended that the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the petitioner after a delay of six months inasmuch as the sample was examined by the Public Analyst on 26-4-1988 whereas its report was sent to the petitioner on 12-10-1988. It was thus contended that the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable right to seek re-analysis of the sample in terms of Section 13(2) of the Act. It was argued that even by using preservatives, the milk could be kept intact for a maximum period of four months, therefore, consumption of six months period in sending report of the Public Analyst to the petitioner has deprived him of a valuable right inasmuch as even if he wanted to have a second analysis to be done, it was not possible after the expiry of four months" period. It is then contended that the concluding part of the Public Analysts report has been completely misread inasmuch as the Roman letter "X" typed in the said report has been read as 10 per cent though it ought to have been read as "X(tm) zero percentage. Reference has also been made to the order dated 15-9-1989 of the learned JMIC whereby charges were framed against the petitioner and in which milk fat was found deficient by 9% (and not 10% as subsequently read by the Courts below). In support of his aforementioned submissions, Sh. Raflan has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s. Ghisa Ram as well as the judgments of this Court in the cases of (i) Resham Singh V/s. The State of Punjab 1972 The Punjab Law Reporter 302 : 1973 Cri LJ 766; (ii) Lekh Rai V/s. U.T. Chandigarh 1990 (1) Rec Cri R 479 (P & H) and (iii) Takan Dass V/s. State of Hatyana, 1990 (1) Rec Cri R 144 (P and H). 9. Lastly, and in order to Implore compassion for the petitioner, Sh. 9. Lastly, and in order to Implore compassion for the petitioner, Sh. Rattan, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that (i) the petitioner is a first offender against whom no other such like offence has ever been reported; (ii) he has already suffered agony of protracted trial and pending appeal/revision; (iii) the petitioner is on bail from last more than 13 years and has never misused the said concession; (iv) the petitioner was 55 years of age in 1989 when the charges were framed against him and by now he must be more than 70 years of age; and (v) the petitioner no longer carries on the business of selling milk, therefore, it is a fit case for invoking powers under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 10. On the other hand learned State counsel has vehemently argued that the petitioner cannot be permitted to take the plea of causing any prejudice as he himself did not opt for re-analysis of the second sample and got dismissed his application unconditionally in this regard. It is argued that deprivation of a valuable right and/or causing any prejudice could have been pleaded by the petitioner had he taken a plea that the milk was not misbranded and he wanted re-analysis of the second sample. It is also contended that since the petitioner himself has admitted that he was carrying milk but his plea that the same was being taken to his nephews house for an Akhand Path ceremony, has been disbelieved by the Courts below. Learned State counsel further argued that there is no misreading of the report of the Public Analyst and if the concluding part thereof, namely, the opinion is read in conjunction and continuity, there is no irregularity. 11. There can be no exception to the fact that sub-clause (2) of Section 13 of the Act confers valuable right on the accused who can make an application to the Court within a period often days from the receipt of copy of the report of the Public Analyst to get the sample analysed/reanalysed and if such sample is found by the Central Food Laboratory unfit for analysis due to decomposition by passage of time or for any other reason attributable, to lapses on the side of prosecution, that valuable right would stand denied and would constitute prejudice to the accused entitling him to acquittal. However, as held by the Apex Court in the case of T.V. Usman V/s. Food Inspector, Tellicherry Municipality "mere delay as such will not per se be fatal to the prosecution case even in cases where the sample continues to remain fit for analysis in spite of the delay because the accused is in no way prejudiced on the merits of the case in respect of such delay". In the case in hand, the petitioner had undoubtedly a legal right to seek analysis of the second sample and it would have been obligatory upon the learned Judicial Magistrate to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory for that purpose. Had the Laboratory found the sample unfit for analysis due to decomposition by passage of time, the petitioner was undoubtedly entitled to acquittal on this score alone. The petitioner, how-ever, despite being alive and conscious of his right for which he moved an application but opted not to avail the said right and with-drew the application unconditionally. In the absence of any material to the contrary to suggest that the second sample was actually decomposed due to passage of time, the petitioner cannot be permitted to plead any prejudice to him. Having his application withdrawn unconditionally for analysis of the second sample, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take shelter behind judgment of this Court in Resham Singhs case 1973 Cri LJ 766) (supra) and/or to contend that the sample of the milk could be kept intact for a period of four months. The petitioner cannot be permitted to assume the role of Public Analyst, who alone could have opined in relation to the second sample. Similarly the petitioners contention as if the report of the Public Analyst was being misread, though appears to be attractive, however, has no factual basis. The conclusive part of the report reads as follows : And I am of opinion that the contents of the sample are deficient in milk fat by X per cent arid in milk-solid-not-fat by 15 per cent of the mtnimum prescribed standard. 12. The report thus in unequivocal terms opines that the sample was found deficient (i) in milk fat by X per cent and in milk-solid-not-fat by 15 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard. 12. The report thus in unequivocal terms opines that the sample was found deficient (i) in milk fat by X per cent and in milk-solid-not-fat by 15 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard. Even if the first part is ignored, the second part which is an integral part of the charge framed and proved against the petitioner demolishes his plea regarding misreading of the aforesaid report. Thus, no case for interference on merits is made out. 13. Coming to the contention, namely, whether or not a case for invoking powers under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is made out, having regard to the fact that (i) the petitioner is an old per-son of more than 70 years of age; (ii) out of total sentence of six months imprisonment, he has already undergone the same for few days; (iii) he is the first offender, (iv) he has not misused the concession of bail during a long period of over 13 years, I am satisfied that the cause of administration of criminal justice can be fully served by releasing the petitioner on probation instead of asking him to undergo remainder of the actual sentence of imprisonment. Consequently, this criminal revision petition is partly allowed and the judgments and orders dated 18-5-1990 passed by the learned JMIC and dated 22-2-1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge are modified to the extent that instead of undergoing the actual sentence of imprisonment of six months, the petitioner is directed to be released on probation on furnishing fresh surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000.00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Sangrur. The petitioner is also directed to give an undertaking to keep peace and to be of good behaviour for one year and to appear and undergo sentence as and when called for. 14. However, this Court is of the view that the manner in which the original records of the case have been destroyed requires a serious consideration by the authorities concerned and responsibility of the persons concerned needs to be fixed. Let a copy of this order be handed to (i) Registrar General of this Court and (ii) to the District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur, who are directed to co-ordinate with each other and take suitable action in this regard on administrative side.