JUDGMENT S.J. Hyder, J. - The applicant was prosecuted and convicted for offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. I He was sentenced to undergo six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, In case of default in payment of fine it was recorded that he shall suffer R.I, for a further period of three months. Against the said order of the Chief ; Judicial Magistrate applicant preferred an appeal. The court of appeal maintained the order of conviction. It reduced the sentence awarded to the applicant to a period of three months R.I. and the fine imposed was also reduced to a sum of Rs. 500/-. The usual default clause was added in the order of the court of appeal. The applicant has now preferred this revision. 2. Shortly stated the prosecution case is that on April 18, 1974 Food Inspector R. S. Verma found the applicant carrying milk in two cans near Ramesh Doodh Bhaudar. He took samples of the milk in the prescribed manner and sent one sample to the Public Analyst. The analysis disclosed that the milk was deficient in fat contents and also in non-fatty solids. After taking sanction of the Health Authority the applicant was required to face his trial before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. The applicants defence was that he was employed as a Chowkidar at the M.E.SL Jhansi and was not carrying on the business of selling milk. According to the applicant he had purchased the milk from Ramesh Doodh Bhandar and was carrying it to his village in connection with Bhandari which was being held there. Purchase of milk had been made by him at the instance of the Mukhya Sia Ram. The prosecution examined the Food Inspector P.W. 1 and Hiralal the driver of the Jeep of the Chief Medical Officer, Jhansi to prove its case. The applicant examined himself and Sia Ram D.W. 2 and Sathu Ram Sharma D.W. 3 as defence witnesses. The trial court disbelieved the defence version inter alia on the ground that the applicant did not examine the Mukhya on whose order the applicant alleged to have purchased milk from Ramesh Doodh Bhandar. This was on the face a misreading of the evidence. The trial court disbelieved the defence version inter alia on the ground that the applicant did not examine the Mukhya on whose order the applicant alleged to have purchased milk from Ramesh Doodh Bhandar. This was on the face a misreading of the evidence. The Mukhya Sia Ram had been examined by the applicant and he had supported the applicants contention. 4. The court of appeal has gone a step further. It has stated in its judgment that the applicant admitted that he was doing business of selling milk in order to augment his income. There is not a whisper of any such statement which might have been made by the applicant before the trial court. The court of appeal has also not considered the defence case and has not recorded any findings with regard to the witnesses examined by the applicant. The judgment of the court of appeal is most unsatisfactory and slipshod. In consequence material injustice has resulted to the applicant. 5. The result is that this revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the applicant under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is hereby set aside. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged and he need not surrender. Fine if realised from the applicant shall be refunded.