JUDGMENT D. P. Uniyal, J. - This is an application in revision against the judgment of the learned Civil and Sessions Judge upholding in appeal the conviction and sentence ox 2 year's R.I. and a fine of As. 2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, under Section 16 (i) (a) (iii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The Food Inspector, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra purchased a sample of mixed milk of cow and goat from the applicant on July 14, 1962. He divided the sample into three equal parts and sealed it. One of the phials was handed over to the accused and the other two remained with the Inspector. One of these two samples was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The report of the Public analyst disclosed that fat contents of the sample was 4.3% while contents of non-fatty solids was 6.1%. The rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (the Act) do not lay down any standard for ascertaining the fat contents or the non-fatty solids of goats milk. It was conceded before me that the standard to be applied in case of mixed milk of cow and goat was the same as that prescribed in respect of cows milk. Under the rules the prescribed minimum in the case of cows milk is as follows: Milk fat ..........3.5% Non-fatty solids 8.5% 3. The Analyst reported that the milk was deficient in non-fatty solids by about 31% and was adulterated. The courts below accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as said above. 4. Under the rules the prescribed minimum in the case of cows milk is as follows: Milk fat ..........3.5% Non-fatty solids 8.5% 3. The Analyst reported that the milk was deficient in non-fatty solids by about 31% and was adulterated. The courts below accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as said above. 4. Sri Gopi Nath Kunzru, learned counsel for the applicant, raised three points before me: (1) That where the fat contents of milk sample exceeded the bottom limit the percentage of non-fatty solids could not be less than the minimum prescribed under the rules; (2) that the natural constituents oi milk being (a) fat (b) non-fatty solids and (c) water, unless it was known how much water was added to milk the percentage of non-fatty solids could not be ascertained and, therefore, the report of the Public Analyst was intrinsically incorrect and could not be relied upon; and (3) that the Public Analyst, on his own showing, had not examined the milk sample himself but had caused it to be examined by his subordinates and, as such, his report was inadmissible; it not being a report contemplated by the Act. 5. At the request of the counsel of the parties allowed them to file interrogatories for the examination of the Public Analyst. In answer to a question of the learned counsel that in a case where fat contents of a sample of milk are more than the prescribed minimum whether it is possible that the non-fatty solids would be less than the normal prescribed under the rules, the Public Analyst said as follows: "Yes, The standards for Fat and Non-Fatty solids are the minimum which should be present in a genuine sample of milk. Generally the milk fat in genuine milk of buffalo is much higher depending on. breed, feed, season, period of lactation, etc. of the animal. The natural variation in the percentage of non-fatty solids in genuine milk samples is slight. Thus when water is added to milk of high fat content the percentages of fat and non-fatty solids both fall down but the quantity of water may not be sufficient to bring the fat percentage below the prescribed minimum owing to excess fat contained in the sample while the percentage of non-fatty solids falls down below the prescribed minimum. An example will make the thing clear. An example will make the thing clear. Suppose a milk has the composition: fat 7.5% and non-fatty solids 9%. If we add 20% water then the resulting mixture will have the composition: fat 6.2% and non-fatty solids 7.5%. Very often vendors sell adulterated buffalo milk as cows milk or mixed milk and in such cases the fat percentage is above the prescribed minimum while non-fatty solids below the prescribed minimum." 6. He went on to say that non-fatty solids are not extracted from milk but its percentage falls down due to addition oi water. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant did not feel satisfied with the replies given by the Public Analyst and insisted on examining an expert of his own choice. Since considered that the point under consideration was of general importance allowed the counsel time to call his witness for examination in court. Accordingly Sri S.L. Arora, Dairy Manager, Agricultural Institute, Naini was examined in court on September 8, 1966 as witness for the applicant, He stated that as a Dairy Manager he was responsible for processing and testing of dairy products in order to ascertain that they are of prescribed quality. He admitted that the standard adopted by him for testing milk was the same as prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He further admitted that it is possible for a sample of genuine milk to have a high percentage of fat contents and at the same time to have a low percentage of non-fatty solid contents. In answer to a further question he said that there have been very very few cases where a marked difference in the percentage of non-fatty solids has been traced out. There is, however, much variation in the percentage of fat contents of milk. He asserted that non-fatty solids cannot be extracted from a sample milk. In his opinion the sample of milk in the present case appeared to have been taken from the top of the can without shaking or stirring it, with the result that fat content of the sample was found to be more than non-fatty solids. Sri Arora said that non-fatty solids consisted of (a) proteins (b) lactose and (c) minerals and that by adding water both the fat contents and the non-fatty solids are likely to be reduced. 8. Sri Arora said that non-fatty solids consisted of (a) proteins (b) lactose and (c) minerals and that by adding water both the fat contents and the non-fatty solids are likely to be reduced. 8. From the above statement of the witness it is clear that a sample of milk may have a high percentage of fat content and at the same time a low percentage of non-fatty solids. He agreed with the opinion expressed by the Public Analyst that by adding water to a sample of milk both the fat contents and the non-fatty solids are likely to be reduced, although the deficiency found in them may not be in the same proportion. This appears to be in consonance with reason and common sense. The milk fat in genuine milk depends on various factors like breed, feed, period of lactation, etc. of the animal, but not so with non-fatty solids. While the standard prescribed respectively in respect of non-fatty solids of cows milk and buffalos milk throughout India is the same and does not vary from State to State, the fat contents of both cows milk and buffalos milk vary from State to State and different standards have been prescribed under the rules for each. The reason behind the rule is that non-fatty solid contents of milk is a constant factor and does not depend upon breed or feed of 3 the animal and cannot, therefore, vary from State to State or from animal to animal of the same species. Decrease in non-fatty solids can only result from addition of water to genuine milk or mixing of foreign matter with it. It follows that if non-fatty solids in a given : sample of milk are less than the minimum prescribed the milk sample must be held to be adulterated, for the deficiency cannot be the result of natural phenomena but must have been brought about by addition of water or other foreign matter to the milk sample. In such a case it would not be necessary to ascertain the actual percentage of added water inasmuch as the water contents of genuine milk would not introduce any variation in the quantity of non-fatty solids. I am not impressed by the argument that where fat contents of milk are in excess of the prescribed minimum non-fatty solids must also be above the standard. I am not impressed by the argument that where fat contents of milk are in excess of the prescribed minimum non-fatty solids must also be above the standard. There is no basis for this proposition and no authority has been : cited to support it. On the contrary, the concensus of expert opinion inclines to the view that there is no inter-relation between milk fat and non-fatty solids except that in genuine milk of cow or buffalo the minimum percentage of each must be found to exist. An abnormal increase in the fat contents, of a sample of milk would not necessarily bring about a rise in the percentage of non-fatty solids, or vice versa. 9. Another contention of the learned counsel that unless a sample has been examined and tested by the Public Analyst himself it cannot be regarded as a valid report within the meaning of Section 13 is equally unsound. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on Section 12 which confers a right on an accused person to have an article of food analysed by the Public Analyst on payment of fee. It was said that the duty of the Public Analyst to examine such a sample and to submit a report of his analysis in accordance with Section 12 was not different from the duty imposed on him under Section 13 (i) which lays down that the Public Analyst shall deliver, in such form as may he prescribed, a report to the Food Inspector of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. Rule 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules prescribes the duties of a Public Analyst, and says inter alia, that he shall cause to be analysed such samples of food as may be sent to him by the Food Inspector or by any other person under the Act. In so far as Rule 7 is consistent with Section 13 (1) it cannot be said that the analysis caused to be made by the Public Analyst and certified by him to be correct is not a valid report. A Division Bench of this Court, of which was a member, held that the Public Analyst is authorised to have the sample of the article of food analysed by a subordinate of his and to submit his report in the prescribed form. A Division Bench of this Court, of which was a member, held that the Public Analyst is authorised to have the sample of the article of food analysed by a subordinate of his and to submit his report in the prescribed form. Vide State of U. P. v. Raghunandan Singh, A.I.R. 1964 , All, 418. 10. In his statement the Food Inspector had said that of the two bottles in hi" possession the one which was in a better condition had been sent by him to the Public Analyst for examination and report. This indicates that proper.preservatives may not have been added to samples of milk, because one of the samples kept by the Food Inspector was, on his own showing, found to be in bad condition. The possibility of the sample which was sent to the Public Analyst having been contaminated could not, therefore, be ruled out and in the circumstances the report of the Public Analyst would be of little value. It seems to me that this contention is .not without force. If the sample sent to the Public Analyst deteriorated due to care lessness of the Food Inspector, the report of the Analyst regarding the contents of the sample would be vitiated and of no material value to the prosecution. The evidence of the Food Inspector, therefore, gives room for doubt that the sample sent to the Public Analyst was not in good condition, so that implicit reliance cannot be placed on such a report . 11. For the reasons given above, I allow this revision and set aside the conviction and sentence of the applicant. The applicant is on bail. Pie need not surrender to his bail. His bail bonds are discharged. If he has already deposited Rs. 500/- as ordered by this Court, the same shall be refunded to him.