JUDGMENT S. Malik, J. - The revisionists, Kadam Singh and Puran came up before this Court against the judgment dated 28.10 1972 of the 3rd Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Meerut, dismissing their appeals against the judgment dated 17.11.1971 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hapur, convicting them under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing each to six month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are that sample of buffalo milk was taken according to law by Food Inspector P.W.l R.C. Srivastava on 14.5.1970 at about 11.00 A.M. from the dairy of applicant Kadam Singh and one of the three containers in which the sample was sealed, was duly sent to the Public Analyst. Puran was the person from whose possession the sample of milk was actually obtained and he claimed to be the servant of Kadam Singh engaged for collecting milk for sale. The Public Analyst, as appears from his report (Ex. Ka 13) dated March 10, 1970, found the milk to be adulterated as it contained 11% of milk fat and only 1.9% of non-fatty milk solids. 3. Clause A. 11.01.02 of Appendix `B' of the Rules framed under the Act lays down that in Uttar Pradesh buffalo milk should contain not less than 6% milk fat and 9% milk solids other than milk fat. It appears that, according to the learned Single Judge, as t,he report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample was deficient in milk solids other than milk fat, both the applicants have been rightly convicted and sentenced as the milk has been proved to be adulterated. The difficulty arose because of observations made by this Court in two earlier cases Sultan Shah v. State, 1973 Cri. L.J. 1413 and Bhup Singh v. Nagar Swasthya Adhikari another, Cri. Rev. No. 1475 of 1966 decided by Allahabad High Court on 13-3-1968. In those cases the report of the Public Analyst was not relied upon because it was observed that it is not possible to take out non-fatty milk solids other than milk fat without disturbing the milk fat in milk. Rev. No. 1475 of 1966 decided by Allahabad High Court on 13-3-1968. In those cases the report of the Public Analyst was not relied upon because it was observed that it is not possible to take out non-fatty milk solids other than milk fat without disturbing the milk fat in milk. The learned Single Judge, therefore, in this case ordered these revision applications to be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for being referred to a larger Bench for decision and they have now been listed before us for disposal. 4. As both the revisions arise out of the same judgment, they can conveniently be disposed of together. 5. The only question which arises, is whether in view of section 13 of the Act, the correctness of the report of the Public Analyst can be doubted. 6. On going through the provisions of the Act carefully, specially, section 13, we find that as laid down in sub-section (5) of section 13 a report of a Public Analyst unless superseded by that of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory may be used as evidence of facts stated in the report, but it would be wrong to say that the report of the Public Analyst is always conclusive proof of the facts narrated therein. Both the parties in a case under the Act have been given the right to challenge the correctness of a report submitted by a Public Analyst in the manner laid down in section 13 of the Act, but it does not follow from it that in case the parties do not get the correctness or otherwise of the report submitted by a Public Analyst verified by a report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory as laid down in section 13, the report of the Public Analyst will be conclusive evidence of the facts stated in the report of the Public Analyst. As is clear from the language of the section read as a whole, specially of sub-section (5) of section 13 a report signed by a Public Analyst is evidence of the facts staled therein, but it would be open to the court deciding the case either to accept such evidence to be reliable or vice versa. As is clear from the language of the section read as a whole, specially of sub-section (5) of section 13 a report signed by a Public Analyst is evidence of the facts staled therein, but it would be open to the court deciding the case either to accept such evidence to be reliable or vice versa. If on the face of it the correctness of the report appears not free from reasonable doubt, a benefit of that doubt has to go to the accused. 7. It is not necessary to refer to various standard books to show that quality of milk or in other words, percentage of milk fat and non-fatty milk solids depends not only on proper feeding, but also the health of the animal from whose under the milk was extracted. In our country, though efforts are being made to improve the breed of milch cattle by crossing the Indian breeds with foreign breeds and foreign bulls have been imported in large numbers for the purpose, but merely improving the breed will not improve the quality of milk or quantity of milk producing capacity of the cattle. Of course, these observations do not apply to buffaloes because India has the best breed of buffaloes in the world as regards capacity to produce milk. The main problem in our country is non availability of nourishing and sufficient quantity of food for the cattle, both green and otherwise. Quality of milk depends not only on quality and quantity of food given to a buffalo, but also its health. 8. 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, but the difference cannot be as much as is mentioned in the report of the Public Analyst in the present case. As has been mentioned, the percentage of milk fat was almost double of the minimum requirement in law, while the percentage of non-fatty milk solids was abnormally low and practically non-existent. The Public Analyst in this case was summoned as a witness and his statement was recorded. He half-heatedly conceded that it is not possible to take out non-fatty solids from milk without reducing or affecting the fat contents. The Public Analyst in this case was summoned as a witness and his statement was recorded. He half-heatedly conceded that it is not possible to take out non-fatty solids from milk without reducing or affecting the fat contents. The exact words he used were "Ordinarily it is not possible to take out non-fatty solids out of milk without affecting the fat contents in it." He, however, could not give any example by which non-fatty solids could be reduced without disturbing the fat contents and the only example he could think of was by extracting cream from milk and then adding one and a half times water to the cream. The statement, to our mind, cannot be accepted. Had this method been adopted, the Public Analyst should have mentioned in his report that the sample was of adulterated cream instead of describing it is adulterated milk. Under the Act cream has been described as a milk product and not milk. Moreover, cream is far more expensive than milk and we fail to see why anyone after taking the trouble of extracting cream should have sold it as milk by adding water to it rather than as cream. 9. It would also not be out of place to observe that when milk is stored, the fat contents come to the top as the milk cools and if sample is taken from the top portion without stirring the milk thoroughly, the sample taken will be very high in fat content and would not give a correct picture or in other words, would not be a correct sample of the quality of the milk. The Public Analyst, moreover, admitted that if germs form in milk, they destroy the non-fatty solids without affecting milk fat, but he added that in that case the milk would become curdled. It is not for us to say whether non-fatty solids could have been destroyed to a considerable extent just before curdling of the milk took place, but in view of the reasons discussed, we find that the report of the Public Analyst is far from convincing and we have grave doubts if the analysis of the sample was properly done. It is not for us to say whether non-fatty solids could have been destroyed to a considerable extent just before curdling of the milk took place, but in view of the reasons discussed, we find that the report of the Public Analyst is far from convincing and we have grave doubts if the analysis of the sample was properly done. As will appear from instructions given to Analysts, even during analysis they are advised to thoroughly shake the sample of milk because the milk fat generally accumulates at the top and if only the top portion of the sample is analysed, it will show a very high percentage of milk fat and a corresponding low percentage of non-fatty solids. 10. We, under the circumstances, allow both the revision-applications and set aside the orders passed by the courts below convicting and sentencing the applicants. They are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are hereby discharged. If either of them has deposited any amount as fine, the same shall be refunded.