JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - Applicant Yad Ram is a hawker. He brings milk from his village in a can and sells it in the city of Agra. On February 25, 1965 Food Inspector Sri M. L. Goel found the applicant selling milk from his can within the limits of Nagar Mahapalika, Agra. He took its sample according to the rules and sent a part of it for the examination of the Public Analyst. The report of the public analyst (Exhibit Ka-5) indicated that the sample was deficient in fat contents by about 23 per cent and non-fatty solids by about 29 per cent. Accordingly the applicant was prosecuted under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As it was found to be his sixth offence he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to Applicant, pay a fine of Rs. 20001/- and in default of its payment to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. On appeal the conviction and sentence of the applicant were affirmed by the learned District Judge, Agra; hence this revision. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory which is on the record shows that the quantity of formalin found by him in the sample for preserving its constituents was much less than the requisite quantity prescribed under the rule and, therefore, it was but natural that the constituents of the milk should have materially changed at the time of the examination by the public Analyst and the Director of Central Food Laboratory. Rule 20 reads: "Preservative in respect of milk, cream and gur. The preservative used in the case of samples of any milk (including toned, separated and skimmed milk), (standardised milk, channa, skimmed milk channa, cream, ice-cream, mixed ice-cream, ice-candy, dahi and gur) in liquid or semi-liquid form shall be the liquid commonly known as formalin' that is to say, a liquid containing about 40 per cent, of formaldehyde in aqueous solution in the proportion of 6.1 ml. (two drops) for 25 ml. or 25 grams." 3. Thus according to this rule two drops of formalin should be mixed in one ounce of milk to preserve its constituents. (two drops) for 25 ml. or 25 grams." 3. Thus according to this rule two drops of formalin should be mixed in one ounce of milk to preserve its constituents. In the instant case the sample phial contained 8 ounces of milk and according to the evidence of the Food Inspector he had mixed 16 drops of preservative in each sample phial. The report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, however, indicates that he could find only about 9 drops of formalin present in the sample. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that 0.195 ml. 100 ml. will be equal to about 9 drops. Sri B.C. Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite party, who had taken repeated adjournments to find out as to whether the quantity of formalin as found present by the Director of Central Food Laboratory in the sample was sufficient in accordance with the rules, has not been able to challenge the assertion of the learned counsel for the applicant. 4. Since the start of the trial applicant has been challenging that the quantity of formalin mixed in the sample was not sufficient. The Food Inspector was cross-examined on this point and it was on the application of the accused that the Director, Central Food Laboratory, was asked to find out the percentage of formalin mixed in the sample. 5. Formalin is a preservative. It is, therefore, very unlikely that a part of it would have evaporated during the period. That being so, it must be held that the quantity of formalin mixed in the milk was much less than that which is required under the rules. 6. The sample of milk was taken on February 25, 1965. It was examined by the Public Analyst on March 15, 1965, and by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, on April 2, 1966. Owing to insufficiency of formalin mixed in the sample it is reasonable to presume that the constituent would have changed during this period. 7. It is true that the Public Analyst has opined that no change had taken place in the constituent of milk which would have interfered with the analysis and the Director, Central Food Laboratory, has replied to the query made by the trial Magistrate that "the fat and non-fatty solids in the sample on February 25, 1965 was more or less the same. But in view of insufficient quantity of preservative mixed in the sample it is not possible to hold affirmatively that the constituent of milk could never have changed by the time they were examined by the Public Analyst and the Director respectively. 8. In the result this revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the applicant are set aside. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. He need not surrender. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded.