JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - Applicant was convicted by a Magistrate First Class under Section 16(1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal his conviction and sentence were upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, hence this revision. 2. According to the prosecution on May 7, 1965 at about 8.15 a.m. applicant was found selling milk in the city of Farrukhabad. Its sample was contained by the Food Inspector a part of which was subsequently analysed by the Public Analyst who found it deficient in non-fatty solids by 20 percent. Applicant who is a villager denied to have brought the milk to the city for the purposes of sale. According to him he was only a carrier for bringing milk to Th. Satendra Singh, a resident of Fatehgarh, from Ram Chandra and Tula Ram of his village. He examined Th. Satendra Singh, Shushil Chandra, Tula Ram, Samshad Husain and Abdul Gani who have supported his version. 3. The prosecution case was supported by the Food Inspector Ambwani (P.W. 1) and the Assistant Sanitary Jamadar Hari Krishna. 4. The courts' below rejected the defence version and held on the basis of the evidence of the Food Inspector that the applicant was carrying milk for sale Food Inspector Ambwani has stated that he found the applicant selling milk in mohalla Machali Tola, Fatehgarh, and that the applicant told him that it was mixed milk of cow, buffalow, and goat. He admitted that he saw the applicant in a lane near a solitary house. He did not see the applicant selling milk to any person nor could he give the quantity of milk which the applicant was carrying with him. 5. On the other hand Th. Satendra Singh (D.W. 1) stated that he had asked the two villagers Ram Chandra and Tula Ram to send him 5 seers of milk for the birthday of his son and it was that milk which the applicant was carrying with him. Sushil Chandra (D.W. 2) stated that when the Food Inspector accosted the applicant who was carrying 5 seers of milk he told him that the milk was not for sale. Sushil Chandra (D.W. 2) stated that when the Food Inspector accosted the applicant who was carrying 5 seers of milk he told him that the milk was not for sale. Tula Ram (D.W. 3) testified to have sent the milk through the applicant for Th. Satendra Singh, Samshad Husain and Abdul Gani (D. W's. 4 to 5) stated that the sample was not taken on spot where the prosecution alleges to have taken it. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the evidence on record. As has been stated above, there is nothing in the statement of the Food Inspector to show that he actually found the applicant selling the milk. There is nothing also in his statement to show as to what was the quantity of the milk which the applicant was carrying. On the other hand the defence evidence indicated that the applicant was bringing five seers of milk only for Th. Satendra Singh. It is difficult to believe that a villager, as the applicant is, will bring such a small quantity of milk to the city for the purposes of sale. It may be that the defence story that he was bringing the milk for Th. Satendra Singh is true. 7. In this view of the matter I am not prepared to hold that the milk from which a sample was taken by the Food Inspector was for sale. That being so, the conviction of the applicant cannot be maintained. 8. In the result this revision is allowed The conviction and sentence of the applicant are set aside. Applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him.