JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. -The applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge Etawah. Hence this revision. 2. A sample of honey was purchased by the Food Inspector on 14th of May, 1979 from the applicant. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed as follows : - "Moisture..........19.7 per cent. Ash..........0.29 per cent. Deducing sugars...........68.3 per cent. Sucrose.............0.54 percent. Fiehe's test...........Positive Fructose Glucose ratio..........0.6 per cent. In the opinion of the Public Analyst Fructose Glucose ratio was less than the prescribed standard of 0.9 and Fiche's test was also positive. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. I had summoned the Public Analyst for the purpose of clarifying the details with regard to Fiehe's test and the test concerning Fructose Glucose ratio. His statement has been recorded and I have carefully perused the impugned orders. Both these tests as per statement, are conducted for the purpose of discovering whether the sample contained commercial Glucose. The Public Analyst has also said that generally if honey is old and is heated Fiehe's test can also be positive. In other words, if honey is old and is heated, then it can give a reading with regard to the addition of commercial sugar. It is true that the Fructose Glucose ratio was 0.6 per cent, which was less than the prescribed standard of 0.9 per cent, but as a result of the honey being old, its constituents may have undergone a natural change, with the result that the standard was lowered. The Public Analyst has also stated that you can not rely upon Fiehe's test to come to the conclusion whether honey was adulterated or not. The reason for the statement appears to be the fact that the ingredients of honey may have undergone a change due to its being old and due to lapse of time. The Public Analyst has also stated that you can not rely upon Fiehe's test to come to the conclusion whether honey was adulterated or not. The reason for the statement appears to be the fact that the ingredients of honey may have undergone a change due to its being old and due to lapse of time. However, in this state of evidence, even though it may be possible to reach a definite conclusion one way or the other, yet it had been given rise to a doubt whether the honey in question had been adulterated by the applicant or had undergone a natural process of change. The benefit of this doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused. 4. In this view of the matter, this revision application is allowed. The conviction of the applicant for the offence under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as also the sentence imposed upon him are set aside. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby discharged.