JUDGMENT M. P. Saxena, J. - The revisionist was convicted, under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to one year's R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of its payment to six months' further R.I. by the trial court. On appeal the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone but the sentence of fine was maintained. 2. The revisionist was prosecuted on the ground that on 30-11-1973 at about 9 A.M. the Food Inspector, Nagarmahapalika, Agra, purchased a sample of milk from him which he was carrying for sale. A portion of this sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and he found it to contain 4.7% fat and 7.2% non-fatty solids. In his opinion the sample was deficient in non-fatty solid contents by about 15% and was, therefore, adulterated. Standard of cow's milk was applied to this case. 3. The revisionist denied the said charge. However, both the learned lower courts found him guilty of the same and he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 4. The next question for consideration is whether the sample of milk which is not deficient in fatty-contents but is slightly deficient in non-fatty solids should necessarily be deemed to be adulterated. After a resume of all these decisions I delivered a judgment in the case of Dhani Rom v. State (Crl. Revision No. 745 of 1973) on 19-9-1978 holding that if a sample of milk is deficient only in non-fatty solids it will not necessarily be deemed to be adulterated. This view was based on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Qadam Singh v. State (Crl. Revision No. 2042 of 1972) decided on 6-1-1978. In that case even the Public Analyst was summoned by the Division Bench and asked to explain how the deficiency in non-fatty solids will necessarily mean adulteration. In my judgment where percentage of fat contents is in excess of the prescribed standard and non-fatty solids are slightly deficient the milk cannot necessarily be held to be adulterated. For all these reasons the revisionist's conviction cannot be maintained. 5. The revision application is allowed and the revisionist's conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence awarded thereunder are set aside. The fine, if deposited shall be refunded to him.