JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Panna Lal has filed this revision application against the judgment and order, dated 9-7-1979 passed by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, dismissing his appeal and confirming his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was awarded four monthsrigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 11-7-1977 Sri S.K. Awasthi, Food Inspector, collected sample of ghee from the shop of the revisionist, situate in Collectorganj, Kanpur. The revisionist carries on business of selling ghee. It was divided into three equal parts and was placed in three bottles in accordance with rules. One phial was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. He reported that the sample contained moisture of 1.9% and free fatty acid as Oleic acid 4.8%. Hence they were in excess of the maximum prescribed limit of 3% and 3% respectively. After obtaining the requisite permission of the District Medical Officer of Health a complaint under Section 7/16 of the said Act was filed against the revisionist. 3. The revisionist denied the said charge and gave out that the ghee was not meant for sale because it was fresh and would have been put up for sale after healing it. The Inspector was apprised of the same but he paid no heed. It was also contended that the bottles were washed just then and were not dried nor they were wrapped with black paper. One Hari Ram was examined in defence. It may also be stated that after some time the revisionist had got one more bottle of the sample sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory for examination. It was examined on 6-10-1978 and the Director sent a report to the effect that the sample contained 1.05% moisture and 10.5% free fatty acid. In his opinion also the sample was below standard and hence adulterated. 4. The prosecution had examined only Sri S.K. Jauhari, the Chief Food Inspector and on a perusal of his evidence and the report of the Inspector the learned trial court found the revisionist guilty of the said charge and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. The appeal filed against it was dismissed. Hence this Revision. 5. 4. The prosecution had examined only Sri S.K. Jauhari, the Chief Food Inspector and on a perusal of his evidence and the report of the Inspector the learned trial court found the revisionist guilty of the said charge and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. The appeal filed against it was dismissed. Hence this Revision. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter. For a number of reasons the revisionists conviction cannot be sustained. There is no denying the fact that the sample contained about 1.9% moisture, when it should have been 3%. The question for consideration is whether there existed such circumstances on account of which there could be increase in the percentage of moisture. The Food Inspector no doubt gave out that-the bottles were washed and dried in that very morning at 9 a.m. but he did not examine the person who had done so. On the other hand the revisionist had examined Hari Ram to prove that the bottles were washed at the time of taking the sample. This witness also gave out that the bottles were not dried and there remained a few drops of water inside the bottles. No effective cross-examination was done of this witness. The learned lower courts did not even discuss his testimony. Under these circumstances his statement could not be lightly brushed aside. Secondly, the sample was collected during rainy season when there was sufficient moisture in the air. According to the Food Inspector himself the bottles could contain 250 grams of ghee but only 200 grams was put in each bottle meaning thereby that some portion of the bottle had remained vacant and oxygen must have been taken from air in the empty portion of bottle and that must have generated moisture, increasing the quantity of water. The Public Analyst had examined the sample after a lapse of about one month from the date of its collection. As held in the case of Radhey Lal v. State 1979 (I) FAC 252 benefit of doubt should be given to the accused in such cases. 6. In the third place the revisionist as well as his witness, Hari Ram, gave out that the ghee, from which the sample was collected, was not ready for sale. As held in the case of Radhey Lal v. State 1979 (I) FAC 252 benefit of doubt should be given to the accused in such cases. 6. In the third place the revisionist as well as his witness, Hari Ram, gave out that the ghee, from which the sample was collected, was not ready for sale. It had come from the Arthtia and would have been exposed for sale after boiling it. This was communicated to the Inspector but inspite of it he took sample from it. On this score also the revisionists conviction was not warranted. 7. The sample was found to contain 4% free fatty acid when it should have been 3%. The change in the free fatty acids can be as a result of adulteration or as a result of ghee coming into exposure with the atmosphere. In Criminal Appeal No. 1426 of 1963 and Criminal Appeal No. 1429 of 1963, Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika Agra v. Bedi Lal, decided on 17th acid denotes freshness of ghee. If ghee is kept for a longer time and in open container the acidity is likely to increase due to oxidation process. Rules require that sample of ghee should be kept in a bottle which should be wrapped with a black paper; in the instant case it was transparent. There is no satisfactory evidence on the record that the bottle was wrapped with a black paper. Therefore, acidity could have increased due to oxidation process. The same view was taken in the case of Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow v. Mushir Ahmed 1978 (I) FAC 165. 8. In these circumstances the prosecution cannot be said to have established guilt on the part of the revisionist beyond doubt and his conviction is liable to be set aside. 9. The revision application is allowed and the revisionists 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.