JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Anganlal has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 30-6-75 passed by the IVth Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bareilly, maintaining his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but reducing the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-awarded by the trial court to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 50/- only. In default of payment of fine, one month's further rigorous imprisonment was awarded. 2. On 29-9-1973 at 10-30 A.M. Food Inspector J.N. Rawat was on checking duly. He saw the revisionist carrying milk in two buckets and a Dibba for sale. He took sample of 660 ml of milk of she buffalo on payment of its price and divided it into three parts. One of the sample phial was given to the revisionist and the other one was sent to the Public Analyst. The later reported deficiency of 58% in the fat contents and a further deficiency of 22% in the non-fatty solids. After obtaining the requisite sanction a complaint was filed against the revisionist. 3. The revisionist denied the said charge and gave out that it was the milk of goat. He was possessed of two goats and was carrying only one kilogram of milk for his father's sister who was lying ill. He denied that it was she buffalo's milk. According to him the Food Inspector had forcibly taken the sample. 4 After going through the material on record the trial court found him guilty of the said charge and convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned. 5. The learned lower appellate court came to the conclusion that even if the revisionist was carrying only one kilogram of milk for his ailing bua it amounted to sale when the Food Inspector purchased the sample on payment of price. It was found to be adulterated. He, therefore, confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence. 6. I have gone through the evidence on the record and it appears that the learned lower appellate court did not make correct appreciation of the same in disposing of the appeal. Generally there is no interference with the finding of fact but I find that in this case a wholly perverse view was taken. 6. I have gone through the evidence on the record and it appears that the learned lower appellate court did not make correct appreciation of the same in disposing of the appeal. Generally there is no interference with the finding of fact but I find that in this case a wholly perverse view was taken. Maqsood Husain (P.W. 2) clearly admitted that the revisionist was carrying only one dibba which contained about one kilogram of milk in two buckets as given out by the Food Inspector. Now the question for consideration is whether the revisionist was carrying this milk for his ailing bua and it was goat milk. In his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the revisionist gave out that it was goat's milk and that he was possessed of two goats. He examined his father's sister's son to prove that his bua was lying ill and the revisionist was carrying only one kilogram of goats's milk for her. There was no such suggestion from the side of the prosecution that his statement was false. The Food Inspector's statement on the other hand that the revisionist was carrying two buckets of milk could not be believed in view of the statement of Maqsood Husain. It is therefore, evident that the revisionist was ailing bua and he could not legally be convicted of the charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 7. The application in revision is allowed and the revisionists' conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence awarded thereunder are set aside. The fine, if deposited, will be refunded to him.