- (1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A.
(2.) THIS revision has been filed against judgment and order dated 18-8-1984 whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist against his conviction by the learned Magistrate was dismissed. The revisionist was challaned for offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on 10-10-1979. Complaint was filed against him when the sample was found adulterated. The ac cused was convicted and sentenced and in appeal the learned appellate Court con firmed the conviction and sentence. Learned Counsel for the revisionist con tended that there was in-ordinate delay in launching prosecution. The sample was taken on 10-10- 1979 and the same was sent to the Public Analyst and the report was dated 13-11-1979. However, the com plaint was filed on 26-8-1981 i. e. , after about 21 months and the notice was sent to the revisionist on 24-12-1981. It is con tended that it was more than two years and two months when the revisionist was given an option to get the report of Central Food Laboratory, if he so desired. The period of more than two years had passed and during this period the sample could not have retained its qualities and must have be come unfit for chemical examination. The learned Revisional Court although held that the notice was sent to the revisionist on 24-12-1981 immediately after the filing of the complaint but it was mentioned that the accused did not exercise his right to get the sample analysed - from the Central Food Laboratory and there was no evidence that the sample had become unfit. It is held by the learned Revisional Court that there must be proof that article had become unfit for analysis. The learned Revisional Court placed reliance upon 1984 ALJ page 434. However, the learned Counsel for the revisionist placed reliance upon Desk Raj v. Slate, 1985 (22) ACC, page 109 in which placing reliance upon a Supreme Court case Municipal Corpora tion of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, it was held that the delay in sending report of Public Analyst to the applicant after a lapse of 283 days of taking of the sample and filing of complaint after 288 days of taking of the sample, the applicant was deprived of his right as conferred on him under Section 13 (2) of the Act. In the Municipal Corpora tion of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, the case of delay of seven months was held to be prejudicial of the defence of the accused. In another case, 1968 Cr. LJ page 123, it has been held that Milk become decomposed after a period of 51/2 months. In this case, there was delay of more than two years and considering the above noted case law, it is clear that the revisionist accused was denied the oppor tunity conferred upon me under Section 13 (2) Cr. P. C. The conviction of the accused is, therefore, bad and the judgment and orders are, therefore, set aside. The revision is allowed. The judg ment and orders dated 18-12-1983 and 18-8-1984 are set aside. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The bail bonds of the revisionist are cancelled and the sureties are discharged. Revision allowed. .;