JUDGMENT M. P. Saxena, J. - Wali Mohammad Khan has filed this revision application against thojudgment and order dated 30-6-73 passed by the Additional District and Session Judge, Bareilly. 2. In Brief, the facts are that on 16-8-72, the Food Inspector along with the Sanitary Inspector went to village Manpuria and found the revisionist selling milk. The requisite sample of the milk was taken on payment of its price. It was divided into three parts and one of it was given to the revisionist. On examination the Public Analyst found the milk to be deficient both in fatty and non-fatty solids. After obtaining sanction to prosecute under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, a complaint was filed against the revisionist. 3. The revisionist pleaded not guilty to the charge and said that he was neither dealing in milk, nor was he exposing it for sale. According to him, his sister was admitted in hospital and he was carrying milk for her when the Food Inspector took the sample. He led evidence in support of this contention. 4. The learned trial court believed story and convicted the revisionist and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of its payment to six months rigorous imprisonment. 5. An appeal was filed against it and the learned lower appellate court dismissed it. According to it, the revisionist was not entitled to any benefit even if this story of carrying milk for his sister was believed because the sample collected by the Food Inspector amounted to sale. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as for the State and have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter. Section 16(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act lays down that if any person manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food, which is adulterated, he is liable to be punished. The question for consideration is whether in this case, it was established that the revisionist was selling or exposing the milk for sale. A perusal of the statements of the Food Inspector and the Sanitary Inspector would show that the revisionist was carrying two kgs. of milk. No sale of milk was made by the revisionist in their presence. Nor had he exposed it for sale. A perusal of the statements of the Food Inspector and the Sanitary Inspector would show that the revisionist was carrying two kgs. of milk. No sale of milk was made by the revisionist in their presence. Nor had he exposed it for sale. Therefore, the essential ingredients of section 16(a) of the Act were not established. On the other hand the revisionist had led evidence to show that his sister was operated upon and was lying in the hospital. Shoe was discharged from the hospital after 16-8-72 One of the defence witnesses further gave out that the revisionist used to take milk for his sister. Therefore there is no reason why the revisionist's version that he was carrying milk for his sister should not have been believed. If he was carrying milk for his sister he could not be liable under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Both the learned trial court and the lower appellate court misread the evidence and came to a wrong conclusion. The conviction of the revisionist cannot be sustained. 7. The revision application is allowed and the conviction of the revisionist under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence awarded thereunder are set aside, The fine if deposited shall be refunded to the revisionist. The bonds furnished by him are cancelled.