JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicants have been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Their conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Jalaun. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard counsel for the parties. 3. The accused-applicants are Arhtia doing business id grain. Ganga Ram is the owner of the firm and Bala Prasad is the servant at the firm. According to the case of the prosecution the Food Inspector had taken a sample of the Ghee from the Arhat Shop of the accused suspecting it to be adulterated, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials which was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed amongst others that Baudouin's test was positive. It appears that the sample was again analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, whose report merely disclosed that Baudouin's test was positive, as such the same was adulterated. After obtaining sanction the applicants have been prosecuted and convicted as above, art from the other questions, which have been raised in this case and which are not necessary to decide one of the main grounds argued is that the Food Inspector's purchase of a sample of Ghee from the accused, was not sufficient in law to establish a transaction of sale. I have very carefully perused the statements of all the three prosecution witnesses in this connection. It is true that the Food Inspector had purchased a sample of Ghee from the applicants, but his evidence clearly disclosed that only one tin of ghee was kept in the Arhat of the applicants. He has nowhere deposed that he saw the applicants selling Ghee to other customers. He has also corroborated the defence that Ganga Ram was doing Arhat business "Gallay Ka Kaam Karta Tha", So far as P.W. 2 is concerned, his testimony is no better. There is no material in his statement either to show that the applicant was engaged in the sale of Ghee from the premises in question. The statement of P.W. 3 is fatal to the prosecution inasmuch as he has admitted that there was only one tin of ghee in the possession of the applicants. This witness has his shop also across the shop of the applicants. The statement of P.W. 3 is fatal to the prosecution inasmuch as he has admitted that there was only one tin of ghee in the possession of the applicants. This witness has his shop also across the shop of the applicants. He has vouched that for several years he has been noticing the accused doing business in Galia Arhat. The accused were not doing business of selling Ghee. This shows complete denial of the fact that Ghee business was done by the accused-applicants. In the statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the accused have very clearly stated that he had only one tin of Ghee for his personal use, and that they did not do business of the Ghee at all. Their sole business was Arhat business of grain In this state of evidence, I hold that the ghee from which a sample was taken was not meant for sale. As such, the Food Inspector had no jurisdiction to take a sample from the tin of the Ghee which was in possession of the applicants at the Arhat of Gaila for his personal use. In this view of the matter the applicants have been wrongly prosecuted and convicted. 4. This revision application is allowed. The conviction of the applicants for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentences imposed thereunder are hereby set aside. The applicants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are hereby discharged. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded.