Short Note : 1. Petitioner had challenged his conviction under S.16 (1) read with S.7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The only point which had been pressed before the Court was that it was not proved that 'Khoa' in question was adulterated. Held: It may be pointed out that the public analyst has nowhere said that the 'Khoa' in question contained any ingredient not found in milk. In fact, it appears from his statement that he did not try to find out as to whether there was any foreign substance in the 'Khoa' and if so, to what extent. Further, it deserves to be noticed that no minimum R.M. rendered to by the public analyst is in respect of Ghee. Admittedly the fat contents contained in 'Khoa' were more than the prescribed fat contents. In the report it is stated that the extracted fat was not completely pure butter fat while in his statement he has said that the fat contents contained in the 'Khoa' were not of pure butter fat. The reason which the public analyst seems to have given in support of his finding is that the R.M. value must be 26 per cent if the contents were pure butter fat. But, 26 per cent minimum R. M. value is only prescribed for Ghee. Thus the evidence of the public analyst (P.W 4) is very unsatisfactory and is not sufficient for coming to the conclusion that the sample of the 'Khoa' was adulterated. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court seem to have accepted the opinion of the public analyst as conclusive without examining the grounds mentioned by him in the report as well as in his statement. Conviction quashed Revision allowed.