ORDER V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant has been prosecuted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter described as "the Act"). 2. Food Inspector, G.C. Chandola, found the accused Abdul Latif carrying milk for sale in cans and suspecting the same to be adulterated, took sample from him in accordance with law. The sample was sent for analysis and the Public Analyst reported that the sample of the milk contained milk fat of 5.9% and non-fatty solids to the extent of 6.8%. The non-fatty solids were found to be deficient by 20 per cent than the prescribed standard of 8.5 per cent and so the milk was found to be adulterated. After obtaining the written consent of the Chief Medical Officer, Nainital the prosecution was launched against the applicant. 3. The trial court found the applicant guilty and convicted him of having committed the offence under section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him to six months R. I. and Rs. 1000/- fine. An appeal was preferred by the accused-applicant which was decided by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital who dismissed the same. 4. In the present revision the learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the sanction granted by the Chief Medical Officer is not a valid sanction as it has been granted in a mechanical manner without applying his mind. No such point was taken before the lower appellate Court. However, before the trial court the aforesaid point was taken which was dealt with by the trial court and it has held that not even a single question was asked in the cross-examination from the Food Inspector, who was produced in evidence. The conclusion drawn by the trial court, in my opinion, does not suffer from any illegality requiring interference in this revision. 5. It has then been urged that the Food Inspector did not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 10 (7) of the Act inasmuch as he did not call independent witnesses of the locality. The Food Inspector in his deposition has stated that the sample was taken before the witness Abdul Hamid and Bhagwan Das and they witnessed the taking of the sample. The Food Inspector has Stated that other persons had refused to be witness. The Food Inspector in his deposition has stated that the sample was taken before the witness Abdul Hamid and Bhagwan Das and they witnessed the taking of the sample. The Food Inspector has Stated that other persons had refused to be witness. From the aforesaid it is thus clear that the Food Inspector had taken all steps to procure the independent witnesses and the contention raised that there compliance of section 10 (7) of the Act is without any substance. 6. It has been lastly urged that the standard prescribed for mixed milk is 4.5 per cent milk fats and 8.5 per cent non-fatty solids. It has been urged that in the instant case the Public Analyst has found the fat contents to be 5.9 per cent and non-fatty solids as 6.8 per cent. Reference has been made to a decision of this Court reported in Dhani Ram v. State 1979 (II) FAC 47. In the aforesaid case the standard prescribed for goat milk was 3.5 per cent while in the sample the fat contents were found to be 6% i.e. much in excess of the prescribed standard. The sample was, however, found to be deficient in non-fatty solids. Relying upon several decisions of this Court it was held in Dhani Ram's case ;- "The position in the instant case is just the same inasmuch as the prescribed standard tor goat's milk is 3.5% of fat. The Public Analyst on the other hand found 6.8% fat contents which was almost the double of the prescribed standard. It Was no doubt deficient in nonfatty 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 Kadam Singh v. State (supra) 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." 7. The factors which were involved in the case of Kadam Singh v. State (supra) 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." 7. The learned counsel on the basis of the aforesaid decision in Dhani Ram's case urged that in the present case the non-fatty solids were deficient by 20 per cent only and that the fat contents were found to be much higher than the prescribed standard of 4.5 per cent and thus in view of the law Laid down in Dhani Ram's case the applicant could not be convicted. In my opinion, the facts in Dhani Ram's case (supra) are similar and in view of the law Laid down in the aforesaid case the conviction of the applicant under section 7/16 of the Act can not be maintained. 8. For the reasons stated above the present revision succeeds and is allowed. The conviction of the applicant under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence awarded thereunder are set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the charge. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.