K.N. Seth, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Balari, dated 30-9-1970 under which he acquitted the accused of the charges under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It appears that a sample of ice-cream was taken from the premises and possession of the accused on 1-4-1968. It was sent to the Public Analyst and his report dated 4-6-1968 indicates that the milk fat contents and total solids were less than the minimum prescribed limits. The Public Analyst also found that the ice-cream was sweetened with foreign material, namely, saccharin, the use of which in ice-cream was prohibited. Thereafter on a complaint filed for the prosecution of the case the Court took cognizance on 25-2-1969 and summonses were issued to the accused for appearance on 8-5-1969, that is, more than thirteen months after the date of taking of the sample. It is not disputed that even if the foreign material, namely, saccharin, was added in the sample the article was decomposed after about ten months. The first opportunity that the accused got to exercise his right of sending the sample for analysis to the Director as contemplated by Section 13(2) of the Act was 8-5-1969. In my opinion by that time, due to decomposition of the material, it was not possible to have it analysed and obtain a correct report. The accused was thus prevented from exercising his right which he possessed under the Act itself. This would be true even in respect of the charge that the ice-cream was sweetened with a foreign material like saccharin. In view of the long lapse of time between the taking of the sample and issue of summonses to the accused, I think the learned Magistrate was right in not proceeding with the complaint and acquitted the accused.
2. No other question has been raised before me.
3. The appeal has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.