JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The Petitioner has been convicted u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to R.I. for six months. 2. The prosecution case is that the Petitioner was selling dried fish in the weekly market, Keonjhargarh, on 2.7.1967 when the Food Inspector detected that the dried fish which the Petitioner was selling was infested with insects. The stock of fish was, therefore, seized and produced before the S.D.O. Keonjhar who directed its destruction. The defence was that the fish was seized from an old lady who happens to be the mother of the accused. She was selling the dried fish and the accused had nothing to do with it. D.w. 1 has been examined to support this defence plea. The Court below have, however, accepted the prosecution case. The three witnesses who came to support the case that it was the Petitioner and not his mother who was selling the dried fish consisted of the ?Food Inspector, a municipal employee and a constable who was on duty in the market area. 3. While these prosecution witnesses have said in Court that the Petitioner was selling dried fish and that was infested with insects, there are two contemporaneous documents which speak differently. Ext. 1 is the report made by the Food Inspector to the S.D.O. of Keonjhargarh. It reads as follows: With due respect I beg to submit the following decomposed fishes which are seized by me on this day from the shop of Sri Gouranga Sl (Vill. Bhatapur P.O./P.S. Keonjhargarh in the district of Keonjhar) at weekly market, Keonjhargarh under Sub-section 4 of Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 for favour of your taking necessary action for disposal. The seizure list was enclosed to this report and it is Ext. 3. Therein it has also been stated the decomposed fish of two varieties with a total weight of 3.900 Kgs. was seized from the Petitioner. In the prosecution report (Ext. 2) made by the Food Inspector the brief description of the offence has been indicated in the following terms: That the accused was selling decomposed fishes in the weekly market, Keonjhargarh. I inspected the very stock of decomposed fishes kept open for sale by him and found a number of ragots in the said fishes and also that was giving unbearable offensive smell as that was noxious. I inspected the very stock of decomposed fishes kept open for sale by him and found a number of ragots in the said fishes and also that was giving unbearable offensive smell as that was noxious. So that as unfit for human consumption, I therefore seized three Kg. and nine hundred grams of the said decomposed fishes in total and produced before the S.D.O. Keonjhar for orders. As per the order of the S.D.O. Keonjhargarh the above mentioned seized articles were destroyed in his presence. So the accused has contravened the Section 7(1) of the P.F.A. Act, 1954 by selling the above mentioned decomposed articles which was unfit for human consumption. The prosecution report is dated 20-7-1967. Sanction was accorded by the District Health Officer on 30-9-1967 and the papers were received in the Court of the learned Magistrate on 19.10.1967. 4. From these documents it would clearly appear that there is no indication that dried fish was being Bold by the Petitioner. "Decomposed fish" and "dried fish" are not synonymous terms. Fish when spoiled and no more eatable is said to be decomposed while when fish is processed by being given a treatment of salt and oil and is dried up it is a known variety of food different from fish. 5. It was at the trial that the three witnesses for the prosecution for the first time introduced the story of sale of dried fish and that the dried fish was insect infested. Dried fish has indeed an unbearable offensive smell which is normally said to be obnoxious. On account of its smell it could not be said to be unfit for human consumption because the dried fish as an article of food has that element. In the prosecution report it was indicated that the Food Inspector had found a number of ragots in the fish. Upon reference to the dictionary such a word was not found and the learned Counsel for the parties also could not throw any light as to the meaning of the term. The Food Inspector (p.w. 1) has nowhere referred to that term in his evidence before the Court, but has stated that the dried fish was insect-infested. The S.D.O. while directing destruction as would appear from Ext. 1 has not noted the existence of any insects. 6. The Food Inspector (p.w. 1) has nowhere referred to that term in his evidence before the Court, but has stated that the dried fish was insect-infested. The S.D.O. while directing destruction as would appear from Ext. 1 has not noted the existence of any insects. 6. The persecution case appears to have varied from the stage of detection to the stage of trial. The seized fish was said to be decomposed at the time of seizure while at the trial it has been referred to as dried fish. Existence of insects was not indicated clearly and because the fish was smelling it was found to be obnoxious and unfit for human consumption. As I have already indicated "dried fish" would normally omit obnoxious smell and by the test of smell it cannot be said to be unfit for human consumption. There appears to be a serious lacuna in the prosecution case on account of the change in the story. The Courts below have not examined this aspect of the matter at all and have not maintained the distinction between "decomposed fish" and "dried fish". 7. It is certainly correct that under the definition of "adulterated" as given in Section 2(i) of the Act insect-infested fish or dried fish would be covered. The definition may now be extracted: ?Adulterated? an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated. x x x (f) If the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or deceased animal or vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption. The food Inspector should have clearly indicated that the stuff was dried fish in this case. Therefore, merely because it omitted filthy or disgusting smell it could not be unfit for human consumption. It should have been clearly indicated that it was insect infested dried fish and an such it became adulterated. Doubt is cast in my mind about the prosecution case on account of the contradictory stand taken by the prosecution at the stage of detection and at the trial. I would accordingly give benefit of doubt to the Petitioner. The result is that this revision is allowed and the Petitioner is acquitted. His bail bond is cancelled. Final Result : Allowed