JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Dhani Ram has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 20-6-1975 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, maintaining the conviction of the revisionist under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of six months-rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- awarded thereunder. In default of its payment the revisionist was given six months' further rigorous imprisonment. 2. In brief the facts are that on 30-3-1974 at about 10-30 A.M. the Food Inspector, Mainpuri, took a sample of milk from the possession of the revisionist when he was going to sell the same at the Exhibition Ground. The sample was taken according to the rules and portion of it was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The Public Analyst found it to be goat's milk. Its fatty contents exceeded the prescribed standard but it was deficient by about 13% in non-fatty solids. The revisionist was accordingly tried under the said count for selling adulterated milk. 3. The revisionist denied the said charge and gave out that he was not carrying any milk for sale nor the price of the sample taken by the Food Inspector was paid to him. 4. After going through the evidence on the record the learned magistrate agreed with the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the revisionist as aforesaid. An appeal was filed before the learned Sessions Judge and it was argued that the milk having been found to contain more than the prescribed fatty contents should not have been held to be adulterated. It was also urged that there was considerable delay in summoning the revisionist for trial with the result that his rights to have the sample examined by the Director, Central Food Laboratory was denied. The learned Sessions Judge disagreed with all the contentions and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision application. 5. The only point pressed by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the standard prescribed for goat's milk is 3.5% of fat. In the instant case the Public Analyst had found the fatty contents to be 6.8% i.e. much in excess of the prescribed standard. Therefore, even if it was deficient in non-fatty solids it could not be held to be adulterated. I have given my anxious consideration to the same and in my judgment there is considerable force in it. In the instant case the Public Analyst had found the fatty contents to be 6.8% i.e. much in excess of the prescribed standard. Therefore, even if it was deficient in non-fatty solids it could not be held to be adulterated. I have given my anxious consideration to the same and in my judgment there is considerable force in it. This question came up for consideration in the case of Sultan Shah v. State, 1973 F.A.C. 343 in which reliance was placed on an earlier decision in Criminal Revision No. 1475 of 1966 decided by Hon. S.D. Singh, J. on 11-3-1968. The latter decision was supported by decisions of the courts in England and its correctness has never been doubted. The ratio decidendi of the said decision, to put it briefly, is that fat contents found in the milk sold is much higher than the minimum prescribed by the rules leads necessarily to the inference that no water has been added to the milk and that in such a case the mere circumstances that the non-fatty solid contents was below the standard prescribed by the rules could only justify inference either that the cow from the udders of which the milk was drawn was not given the proper feeding or that the Public Analyst's report was erroneous but not an inference that the milk in question was not pure. This view was followed in the case of Sultan Shah v. State (supra) also. As there still remained some controversy the question was referred to a larger Bench in Kadam Singh v. State, 1978(1) FAC 160. The Division Bench has also held that the report sent by a Public Analyst is evidence of the facts stated therein but it would be open to the court deciding the case either to accept such evidence to be relied on or vice versa. If on the face of it the correctness of the report appears not free from reasonable doubt the benefit of that doubt has to go to the accused. Thereafter the Division Bench proceeded to consider the facts on which the milk fat and non-fatty milk solids depend. As observed by the Division Bench, it depends not only on proper feeding but also on the health of the annual from whose udder the milk was extracted. Thereafter the Division Bench proceeded to consider the facts on which the milk fat and non-fatty milk solids depend. As observed by the Division Bench, it depends not only on proper feeding but also on the health of the annual 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. The same is the position in the case of goat's milk. However, the difference is not likely to be very great. In that case the Public Analyst was also summoned and his statement was recorded. He half-heartedly conceded that it was not possible to take out non-fatty solids from milk without reducing or affecting the fat contents. He could not give any example by which non-fatty solids could be reduced without disturbing the fat contents. 6. The Division Bench also observed that when milk is stored the fat contents come to the top as the milk cools down and if sample is taken from the top portion without stirring it thoroughly the sample will be very high in fat contents and would not give a correct picture or, in other words, would not be a correct sample of the quality of the milk. The report of the Public Analyst was, therefore, held to far from convincing and not absolutely free from doubt. In these circumstances the revision application was allowed and conviction of the revisionist was set aside. 7. The position in the instant case is just the same in as much as the prescribed standard for goat's milk is 3.5% of fat. The Public Analyst on the older hand found 0.8% fat contents which was almost the double of the prescribed standard, it was no doubt deficient in non-fatty solids by about 13%. By no stretch of imagination it could be said that the milk which was deficient considerably in non-fatty solids was adulterated, the factors which were involved in the case of Kudam Singh v. State, 19/8 (L) F.A.C. 160 are equally well involved in the instant case and the sample of milk collected by the Food Inspector cannot, under the circumstances, be held to be adulterated. The revisionist's conviction is liable to be set aside. 8. The revisionist's conviction is liable to be set aside. 8. The revision application is allowed and the applicants' conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence awarded thereunder are set aside. They are on bail and need not surrender. The bonds furnished by them are cancelled.