ORDER Gyanendra Kumar, J. - The application in revision has to be allowed. The applicant is a ghee dealer at Rishikesh. On 30-10-1961, PW 1 U.S. Sharma, Food Inspector of the Municipal Board, took a sample of ghee from him for analysis. In his report dated 30-10-1961, the Public Analyst, U.P. reported that the Ghee in question was adulterated on account of the following factors : - 1. Butyrorefractometer reading was in excess by 0.3. 2. Reichert value was deficient by 3.3. 3. Free fatty acid content exceeded the prescribed maximum limits by 3%. 4. Moisture (water content) exceeded the maximum limit by 0.3%. 2. The difference in the first two items was considered to be so negligent that it was ignored by the Sessions Judge. Regarding the excess of free fatty acids, it was observed by the Sessions Judge at page 8 as follows : - "In the present case also there was delay in chemical analysis. The bottle in which sample was taken was not covered with black paper to avoid any action of light on the sample. 0.3% of moisture is permissible in pure ghee. In the circumstances, it can not be said (on account of the presence of the free fatty acids upto 9.3%) that the sample was of adulterated ghee". 3. From the above quotation, it is amply clear that the excess of free fatty acid contents in the instant case was not considered by the Sessions Judge to be large enough as to amount to adulteration of ghee. However, at page 10 of his judgment, he observed : - "It is quite evident that the sample in question is adulterated. Either free fatty acids to the extent of 9.3 per cent were present in the sample from before or the percentage increased on account of hydrolytic process. In the first case, the ghee is adulterated because the free fatty acid contents exceeded the prescribed maximum limit of 3.0 percent. In the second case it is adulterated because there was no question of increase of water on account of Chemical deterioration. The water content exceeded the prescribed maximum limit of 0.3 per cent." 4. The concluding portion of the judgment of the Sessions Judge with regard to free fatty acids is thus inconsistent with his earlier finding that the difference was of no material consequence in this case. The water content exceeded the prescribed maximum limit of 0.3 per cent." 4. The concluding portion of the judgment of the Sessions Judge with regard to free fatty acids is thus inconsistent with his earlier finding that the difference was of no material consequence in this case. Therefore, the sample in question cannot be considered as adulterated on account of the excess presence of free fatty acids therein. 5. This leaves us with the last item namely of moisture or water contents. As already observed above, in the instant case the water content was found to be 0.3% in excess. In the first place, even the precise scientific instrument cannot exactly measure such a small fraction of deficiency or excess of moisture. It is a matter of common knowledge that if the same substance is measured or tested on two instruments, even of the same make, the readings are more often somewhat different. Secondly, Dr. K.D. Jain, who was a highly qualified Expert possessing Masters and Doctorate degrees and had worked in the Government of India Ordnance Laboratory, Kanpur, for nine years as Senior Chemist, was examined before the Sessions Judge on behalf of the accused on the basis of certain formula he was of the opinion that when chemical deterioration in Ghee starts during the process of the oxidation with the help of atmospheric oxygen, water is also generated. This water increased the quantity of moisture in the substance. 6. In the instant case, the sample was placed in a bottle which contained 4 ozs. of Ghee and the remaining portion was empty. It was not wrapped with black paper. It was examined by the Public Analyst after one-month. In his report, he has not stated that there was no deterioration or charge in the constituents of the sample on account of this influx of time. The empty portion of the bottle is obviously full of oxygen and by process of oxidation oxygen must have been taken from the air in the empty portion of the bottle and that must have generated moisture, increasing the quantity of water up to 6%, according to Dr. Jain. 7. On behalf of the prosecution was examined another Expert Sri R.P. Mathur, who was only a Lecturer in Chemistry in the D.A.V. College, Dehradun. It is true that his opinion on the question of oxidation is some what different. Jain. 7. On behalf of the prosecution was examined another Expert Sri R.P. Mathur, who was only a Lecturer in Chemistry in the D.A.V. College, Dehradun. It is true that his opinion on the question of oxidation is some what different. But he is also of the view that in oxidation, water is created with the help of atmospheric oxygen and the quantity of water thus created is not more than the quantity of water assimilated during the hydrolytic process. Sri Mathur also admitted that it was possible that in some cases oxidation process starts first. So it cannot be said whether in the instant sample the first chemical change was hydrolation tensility or it was oxidation rensidity. In the above state of opinions of Chemical Experts, the presence of 0.3% of moisture in excess of the standard may very well have been created during the interval between the taking of the sample and its chemical analysis one month later, in the circumstances mentioned above. At any rate, it is a fit case in which the benefit of doubt should go to the accused which is accorded to him now. 8. In the result, the revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the applicant are set aside. The fine if already paid shall be refunded to him.