JUDGMENT 1. - The accused was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udaipur under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to three months and maintained the sentence of fine. 2. The facts that gave rise to the prosecution of the accused briefly stated are these : On December 20, 1972 Harbanslal (Food-Inspector) took sample of milk from the tea shop of the accused under the provisions of the Act. On analysis by the Analyst, it was found milk of cow and contained 4.9 percent fat and 6.80 percent non-fat solids, and 18 percent of water. 3. The accused denied that the milk was for sale, and that no sample was taken from him. In support of his case, he examined five witnesses. The courts below have rejected his defence. 4. The prescribed table shows that the cow milk shall contain 3.5 percent fat and not less than 8.5 percent of no-fat solids. 5. The contention on behalf of the accused is that in view of the fact that the fat-content was more than the prescribed standard, it is not possible to hold that the milk sold by the accused was not pure by reason, merely of the shortage of the solid content in the milk. The fat content found in the milk was much higher than the minimum prescribed by the rules. It, therefore, leads necessarily to the inference that no water had been added to the milk and that in such a case the mere circumstance that the non-fat solid content was below the standard could only justify the inference either that the cow was not properly fed or that the Public Analyst was to some extent erroneous, but not the inference that the milk in question was not pure. When compared from the finding of the Analyst with the standard fat-content of cow milk it is difficult to hold in this case that the milk was adulterated. 6. From the facts it is seen that the accused might have been selling tea on the toad. When compared from the finding of the Analyst with the standard fat-content of cow milk it is difficult to hold in this case that the milk was adulterated. 6. From the facts it is seen that the accused might have been selling tea on the toad. After this incident, I am told that the accused has started pulling cart to earn his livelihood. 7. For the reasons stated above, I allow this revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused and acquit him. *******