JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is an appeal filed by the Municipal Board of Kanpur against Hanuman Prasad who has been acquitted under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954. 2. The case of the prosecution was that the respondent was dealer in ghee and he was selling and storing ghee for sale. On the 21st of December, 1957 a sample of ghee was taken from the shop of the respondent. It was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who by his report dated 21st of February, 1958 gave the following analysis of the sample of ghee. 1. Butyrore fractometer Reading (at 40 C. 42.2/27.3) 2. Reichert value. 3. Moisture (water content) within permissible limit. 4. Free fatty acids (as Oleic Acid) 11.2%. 5. Baudouins test (for presence of Til Oil) Negative. The final report was that the sample contained 8.2% of free fatty acids (calculated as Oleic Acid) over and above the maximum permissible limit of 3%. The Chemical Analyst was further of the opinion that the ghee was adulterated. Thereupon a charge was framed against the respondent. 3. The respondent admitted that he was a seller and stores of ghee, that on that day a sample was taken from his shop, but he took two defences before the Magistrate. One was that the prosecution has failed to prove that the sample which had been taken was kept sealed throughout and the second defence is that the analysis having taken place two months after the sample was taken, on account of moisture, light and air during this period there was the consequent excess of acidity. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the ghee was kept sealed throughout and acquitted the accused Aggrieved by that decision the Municipal Board has filed this appeal and has placed great reliance on Ext. Ka-4 which is the report of the Public Analyst. In that report it has been mentioned that the sample of ghee which was for analysis was properly sealed and fastened, and that he found the seal intact and unbroken. Under the circumstances reliance was placed on section 13(5) that this document, which purports to be signed by a Public Analyst, would be a proof of its contents, that is, the bottle was sealed and the seal was intact and unbroken. 4. Under the circumstances reliance was placed on section 13(5) that this document, which purports to be signed by a Public Analyst, would be a proof of its contents, that is, the bottle was sealed and the seal was intact and unbroken. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent has actually relied on the fact, that if there is moisture in the ghee or it is exposed to light, air and moisture, the acidity increases in course of time, and, therefore, if the analysis has taken place after a period of two months, it is possible that originally the content of acid might have been 3 per cent but had increased to 11.2 per cent during this period. 5. It has been contended that so far as the presence of moisture is concerned, the report itself shows that there was moisture in the ghee, though it was within the permissible limit, which is 3 per cent under the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Therefore, the ghee contained moisture possibly up to 3 per cent. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent has cited before me the book named "Butter-Fat (Ghee)" by N.N. Godbole and Sadgopal. The book has been published by the Department of Industrial Chemistry, Benaras Hindu University, Benaras in the year 1939. The first edition of this book was actually published in 1930, but the book which has been produced before me is the second edition of the year 1939. 7. In order to see the effect of light, air and moisture separately and conjointly, experiments has been made. A sample of ghee freshly prepared from butter-fat, which has its acid contents as nil was tried under different circumstances. The fat was hermetically scaled in a thoroughly sterilised colourless glass tube freed from all air and moisture and kept exposed to diffused light for 93 days. That is, the ghee was only exposed to light but there was no moisture or air in this experiment. 8. The same fat was kept in a sterilised porcelain dish placed in a vaccum desiccator containing water. The latter was evacuated thoroughly, covered with black paper, wrapped in a black piece of cloth and was kept in a dark almirah for 92 days. This was to see the effect of moisture on ghee. It had been evacuated thoroughly, therefor e, there was no air. The latter was evacuated thoroughly, covered with black paper, wrapped in a black piece of cloth and was kept in a dark almirah for 92 days. This was to see the effect of moisture on ghee. It had been evacuated thoroughly, therefor e, there was no air. The sample was covered by a black cloth and black paper and put in a dark almirah, therefore, there was no light. 9. In the third experiment the fat was kept in a sterilised porcelain dish placed in a dessicator containing fused calcium chloride, covered with a black paper and wrapped in black piece of cloth for 93 days. Here it was not evacuated and, therefore, air alone was present There was no moisture as it was placed in dessicator containing fused calcium chloride. The sample being covered with a black paper and black cloth there was no effect of light. 10. Yet another sample was kept in a dessicator containing water and exposed to diffused light of the room for 90 days. That is, this sample was being tested for chemical action that might take place on account of moisture and light. The result of these experiments was that in the first case there was no increase in the acid contents. In the second case the acid contents increased by 8.9 per cent. In the third case again there was no increase in the acid contents, where in the fourth case the acid contents increased from 0 per cent to 15.1 per cent. The result of the above experiments was that the presence of moisture increases the acid contents and if there is moisture coupled with light the action is accelerated. Light alone possibly would have had no effect but in the presence of moisture it acts as a catalytic agent or an accelerator. It has been argued that if a ghee which was absolutely free from moisture and was exposed only to air, moisture would increase in acidity to 8, 9 per cent; and in the presence of light on 15.1 per cent; in the course of two months which was taken for analysis the acid content could very well go up to 11.2 per cent. In the sample which was taken in the experiment as I have already mentioned, there was no moisture, but in the present case according to the report, there was probably .3 per cent moisture in the ghee itself. That would certainly start its chemical action and if the bottle was not kept in dark probably the action would be accelerated. There might have been 3 per cent acid already in the ghee and if that was there the increase by 8 per cent may very well be due to delay in chemical analysis. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that if this line of argument is accepted, it may be difficult to get any conviction for adulteration of ghee. That will be no ground for convicting a person. If there is a possibility of increase in acid contents, it is up to the Municipal Board and the Chemical Analyst to have the analysis immediately if they want to have the conviction. On the ground that it might be difficult to convict a person of adulteration, I cannot convict the present respondent, because, he is clearly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In the present case, it may be that this acid content increased during this period, and, if it has increased during this period it is no fault of his. While he was selling ghee on the 21st of December, 1957, the ghee may have been exactly in accordance with the standard prescribed. 12. It is a matter of common knowledge, that ghee if it is kept for a long time, does often deteriorates in its taste, probably due to the chemical action which might be taking place, particularly in the presence of light and moisture. It may further be advisable for those people to take the sample, to cover the bottles with black paper so that there may not be any action of light on the sample and it may only be the action of moisture which might work and, in that event, probably the acid may not increase so much. As I have said, the difficulty of prosecution is no ground for convicting a person, who may be innocent. 13. As I have said, the difficulty of prosecution is no ground for convicting a person, who may be innocent. 13. Apart from this fact this is an appeal against acquittal and as has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in numerous cases that unless there are compelling reasons and exceptional and special circumstances this Court will not interfere with the orders of acquittal. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case 1 see no reason to interfere and the appeal is dismissed.