ORDER M.P. Saxena, J. - Babu Lal has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 4.8.1976 passed by the Sessions Judge, Agra, confirming his conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment by the trial court and in appeal it was reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 5.1.1974 at 9.30 a.m. the Food Inspector had found the revisionist selling milk in Azad Nagar, Bharatpur Road. The revisionist gave it out to be cow's milk. The Food Inspector purchased the requisite quantity of milk from the revisionist and placed it into three separate phials in the manner prescribed. One of the phials was given to the revisionist and the other one was sent to the Public Analyst who found that the sample contained 8.6% fat and 7.5% non-fatty solids. The prescribed standard of cow's milk for this State is 3.5%. In this manner it was deficient in non-fatty contents by about 12%. 3. The only question for consideration is whether the milk should be held to be adulterated if it conforms to the prescribed standard in respect of fatty contents but is deficient about non-fatty solids. This question has been the subject matter of discussion in a number of cases. Recently it came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 2042 of 1972 (Yadav Singh v. State, decided on 6.1.78). It was held that as regards percentage of fatty and non-fatty solid contents it depends not only on proper feeding but also on the health of the animal from whose udder the milk was extracted. Quality of food given to an animal whether cow or buffalo to a certain extent affects both quantity and quality of the milk produced by it. 4. In that case even the public analyst was summoned. He halfheartedly conceded that it was not possible to take out non-fatty solids from milk without reducing or affecting the fat content. He could not give any example by which non-fatty contents could be reduced without disturbing the fat contents. In these circumstances it was held that if the sample conforms to the standard prescribed for fatty contents it will not be held to be adulterated simply because it is slightly deficient in non-fatty solids. He could not give any example by which non-fatty contents could be reduced without disturbing the fat contents. In these circumstances it was held that if the sample conforms to the standard prescribed for fatty contents it will not be held to be adulterated simply because it is slightly deficient in non-fatty solids. The same view was reiterated by me in the case of Dhaniram v. State (Criminal Revision No. 745 of 1975) decided on 19.9.78. In this view of the matter the revisionists conviction is liable to be set aside. 5. The revision application 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. He is on bail and need not surrender. The bonds furnished by him are cancelled.