Short Note : 1. Appellant was convicted for the offence under section 7 (1) read with section 16, (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Held: The learned counsel for the non-applicant contends that this Court in revision should not interfere in the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below. there cannot be dispute to the general principle stated by the learned counsel. However, in the instant case the facts are too patent to cause a reasonable doubt with respect to the identity. of the applicant and the approach of the Courts below in discarding the expert evidence is not proper. The memorandum prepared by the Food Inspector while purchasing the sample milk do not contain any mark of identification with respect to the person from whom the milk was purchased. Therefore, the oral testimony of the Food Inspector who had seen the applicant in the Court after a lapse of over two years could not have been accepted to fix the identity particularly when the handwriting expert gave a clear opinion that the signatures on the disputed documents are not that of the applicant. With a view to appreciate the opinion of the handwriting expert, this Court has noticed the signature made by the applicant on the muchalka executed on 12-3-1975 as well as that which was executed on 4-11-1973. A comparison of these signatures with the signatures on the disputed documents by naked eye would reveal that the signatures on the disputed documents do not tally with the admitted signatures of the applicant. It may be that a clever fellow may deliberately give out wrong name, address and put imitative signatures on the documents when he is caught selling adulterated milk and save himself from the clutches of law. But the prosecution to avoid any such situation should find out ways and means to fix the identity of the wrong doer in a manner that it may not be easily challenged, at the stage of trial. However, once the doubt is created in the mind of the Court, with respect to the identity of the applicant, the benefit of that doubt must go to him. However, once the doubt is created in the mind of the Court, with respect to the identity of the applicant, the benefit of that doubt must go to him. Under these circumstances, to my mind, it is a fit case 'wherein this should make interference as' a revisional Court and set aside the conviction and sentence as recorded by the Courts below against the applicant. Revision allowed.