JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. -The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the P.F. Act and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 2,800/- by the Magistrate first class Ghaziabad. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. Hence this revision. 2. I have carefully perused the impugned orders. According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector had taken a sample of rapeseed oil from the shop of the applicant on 18th December 1979 at about 6 P.M. One of the sample phials which was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst disclosed the rapeseed oil to be mixed with butter yellow cotton dye, which was prohibited. After taking sanction the applicant was prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. I am normally very reluctant to interfere with the findings of fact, recorded by the courts below, but this appears to be one of those exceptional cases in which I should interfere, otherwise there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice. The defence taken up by the accused was that the rapeseed oil, of which a sample was taken, was meant for oiling his expeller machines. On the facts admitted, the position is that his shop is divided into two parts by a packka wall. On one side of it, he sells articles of food and on the other side he has fixed an expeller machine. The prosecution evidence disclosed that the oil in question was only 1 kg. in a container of 45 kg. There is no evidence to indicate that there were more tins of rapeseed oil in the shop for the purpose of sale. Shopkeeper who deals in rapeseed oil would not keep only 1 kg. Normally the quantity expected would be much more. This is the first circumstance supporting the defence case. Secondly, the prosecution evidence itself discloses that this 1 kg. of rapeseed oil was kept near the expeller machine. Thus it was not kept in that part of the shop which was meant for sale. As I have mentioned above, the shop was partitioned by a wall and the portion where sale was being affected of food stuffs was entirely separate from the expeller where it was fixed. This is the second circumstance in favour of the defence. Thus it was not kept in that part of the shop which was meant for sale. As I have mentioned above, the shop was partitioned by a wall and the portion where sale was being affected of food stuffs was entirely separate from the expeller where it was fixed. This is the second circumstance in favour of the defence. Thirdly, the defence plea has been taken up by the accused specifically that the oil of which a sample was taken was not meant for sale but was for oiling the expeller. This statement was made under Section 3)3 Cr. P.C. This is not a case where the plea was not taken at all and some new case has been spun out in the cross-examination. Fourthly, the accused has led evidence to prove that at the time when the Food Inspector was taking the sample, the accused was holding a cotton cloth which was set with the oil, which was used for oiling the expeller machine. 4. In the background of the facts mentioned above, I see no reason why the defence evidence should not be accepted in corroboration of the defence theory. The court below appears to have rejected the statement of the D.W. on this ground that this witness had come when the sample was being taken. That may be so. But the statement given by him that the accused was holding a piece of cotton in his hand, with which the machine was being oiled, need not necessarily be falsified by this later portion of the statement of the witness. When he reached there and the sample was being taken the cotton may have remained in the hand of the accused, with which he was cleaning and oiling the expeller. 5. This extremely strong circumstantial evidence, to my mind, fully corroborates the defence plea and has been wrongly rejected by the courts below. It appears to me that the mind of the Court was affected by these circumstances, otherwise a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court, would not have been awarded. Be that as it may, there is no escape from the position that the defence plea makes the prosecution case extremely doubtful. 6. In these circumstances, this revision is hereby allowed. Be that as it may, there is no escape from the position that the defence plea makes the prosecution case extremely doubtful. 6. In these circumstances, this revision is hereby allowed. The conviction of the applicant for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence passed thereunder are hereby set aside. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him.