JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant was prosecuted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The applicant was found selling mixed milk of buffalo and goat without any licence and the Food Inspector ILL. Dhohara suspecting the purity of the milk took sample of the milk in accordance with law and sent the same to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed the sample to be deficient in non-fatty solids by about 24 per cent. Written consent of the concerned Chief Medical Officer was obtained and thereafter prosecution was launched. 3. Before the trial court the prosecution examined the Food Inspector B.L. Dhohara as P.W.1 and Kishun Prasad, Sanitary Supervisor as P.W.2. Accused also examined Mohar Singh Tomar as D.W.l in his defence. The trial court believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the applicant under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to six months R.L and Rs. 1000/- fine. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant in the present case has urged that admittedly the sample of the milk which was taken from the applicant was of cow and goat milk in equal proportion and there was no standard prescribed for such a mixed milk of goat and cow on the date of taking of the sample and thus the applicant could not be convicted under section 7/16 of the Act. 5. A bare perusal of Item 11.01.06, which prescribes the standard for milk shows that on the relevant date there was a standard prescribed for mixed milk. The standard prescribed was fat contents 4.5% and non-fatty contents 8.5 per cent. In the present case on analysis the sample was found to contain 6 per cent fats and 6.5% non-fatty solids. It is thus clear that as far as the fat contents are concerned, the sample contained more than what was prescribed. However, as far as the non-fatty contents was concerned, the sample was deficient. found to be much higher than the prescribed standard of 4.5% following Dhani Ram v. State 1979 (II) FAC 47, conviction set aside. 6. It is thus clear that as far as the fat contents are concerned, the sample contained more than what was prescribed. However, as far as the non-fatty contents was concerned, the sample was deficient. found to be much higher than the prescribed standard of 4.5% following Dhani Ram v. State 1979 (II) FAC 47, conviction set aside. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that on the relevant date there was no definition of the mixed milk and in the Entry what was written is "standardised milk and mixed milk." It has been urged that standardised milk is of cow and buffalo which has been pasteurised. From the aforesaid definition of standardised milk it has been urged that mixed milk should also be taken to be mixture of buffalo and cow milk and not of cow and goat milk. I am unable to agree with the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant for the reason that in case this was the meaning which was to be given to mixed milk, there was absolutely no necessity of mentioning mixed milk separately. Mixed milk, in my opinion, would definitely cover a mixture of cow and goat milk. 7. It has then been urged that the standard prescribed was 4.5% fat contents and 8.5 per cent non-fatty solids. It has been argued that in the instant case the Public Analyst has found the fat contents to be 6 per cent and non-fatty solids to be 6.5%. Relying on a decision of this court reported in Dhani Ram v. State, 1979 (II) FAC 47, it has been argued that the sample cannot be held to be adulterated. In Dhani Ram's case (supra) it was held "...........The position in the instant case is just the same in as much as the prescribed standard for goat's milk is J.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 non-fatty solids by about 13%. By no stretch of imagination it could be said that the milk which was deficient considerably in non-lastly solids was adulterated. 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 non-fatty solids by about 13%. By no stretch of imagination it could be said that the milk which was deficient considerably in non-lastly solids was adulterated. The factors which were involved in the case of Kadam Singh v. State (supra) arc 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." 8. The learned counsel on the basis of the aforesaid decision in Dhani Ram's case (supra) has urged that in the present case the non-fatty solids were deficient by about 24 per cent and the fat contents were found to be much higher than the prescribed standard of 4.5% and thus, in view of the law Laid down by this Court in the case of Dhani Ram's (supra), the applicant could not be convicted. In my opinion, the facts of Dhani Rani's case are similar and in view of the law Laid down in the aforesaid case, the conviction of the applicant can not be maintained. 9. 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 arc set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the charge. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.