ORDER M.P. Saxena, J. - Deokinandan has filed this revision application against the judgement and order dated 6.7.1976 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Etah, confirming his conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of six months R.I, and a fine of Rs, 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to six months' further R.I. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that on 2.9.1973 at about 8 A.M. near the brick-kiln by the side of Marehra-Meraichi Road the revisionist was found carrying buffalo milk for sale in a milk container. Sri B.N. Dixit (P.W. I) who was the Food Inspector at that time took a sample of that milk in the manner prescribed. The sample was divided into three equal parts and was placed in three bottles. One of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst who found the sample deficient in non-fatty contents by about 20%. As regards fat contents, it conformed to the prescribed standard. After obtaining necessary sanction of the District Medical Officer of Health, Etah, a complaint was filed. 3. The revisionist denied the said charge and gave out that the milk which he was carrying was not meant for sale. He was taking it to his house to celebrate the Dasthon ceremony of his brother's son. Hoti Lal (D.W. 1) was examined in support of this contention. 4. A number of points were raised before the learned lower appellate court but unsuccessfully. The only point which has been urged before me is that according to the report of the Public Analyst himself, the sample conformed to the prescribed standard as regards fat contents and was deficient only in respect of non-fatty solids and, as such, it could not be held to be adulterated. The contention is not without force because this question was referred to a Division Bench in Kadam Singh v. State 1978 (I) F.A.C. 160, decided on 6.1.1978. In that case it was held that the report sent by a Public Analyst is evidence of the fact stated 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 the benefit of it will have to be given to the accused. If on the face of it the correctness of the report appears not free from reasonable doubt the benefit of it will have to be given to the accused. As regards percentage of fat and non-fatty solid contents, the Division Bench observed that it depends not only on proper feeding but also on the health of the animal from whose under the milk was extracted. The 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. In that case the Public Analyst was also summoned. He half-hearted 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 content. This view of the Division Bench I have respectfully followed in two other cases. The aforesaid observations of the Division Bench make it clear that non-fatty solids cannot be reduced without disturbing the fat contents. Where the fat contents conform to the prescribed standard the non-fatty solids should also conform to the standard given and if it does not, it would mean that the report of the Public Analyst is not correct. In the instant case also no explanation, is available as to why the non-fatty solids were diminished when the fat contents in the same sample were more than the prescribed standard. It shows that the report of the Public Analyst was not correct and implicit reliance could not be placed on it. In its absence there was no other evidence to show that the milk was adulterated. The result is that 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, will be refunded to the revisionist.