Singh, J.- Two short questions which arise for consideration in this revision are (a) whether the petitioner made the alleged admission before P.W. 1, Food Inspector, that Ram Gulam Mandal, a co-accused, since absconded, from whom the adult­erated sample of milk was taken, was his servant and that the milk belonged to the petitioner? and (b) whether the con­viction has been based on legal evidence? The circumstances which led to the conviction of the accused may be stated briefly. 2. On 31.8.71 accused Ram Gulam Mandal, since absconded was taken to the Municipal Office by one Giridhar Bora along with milk meant to be supplied to the Civil Hospital, Jorhat. The milk was supplied by contractors of the Civil Hospital. From his custody, a sample of the milk was taken to be analised by the Public Analyst of the Government of Assam, Shillong, by giving notice in form No. VI, Ext. 1, to him in presence of witness P.W.2, Babula Nath Kataki and others. Receipt for the price of the sample of milk was also given to him in presence of these witnesses marked Ext. 2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner subsequently came to the Municipal Office. It was alleged that petitioner admitted before the Food Inspector, P.W. 1, Dr. L. S. Phukan, that the accused Ram Gulam Mandal, was his servant and that the milk belo­nged to him. His signatures were obtained on the notice, Ext. 1 and Receipt Ext. 2. On both these exhibits against his name, the word 'master' in English was found written. The milk was a buffalo milk containing 61% of water, as reported by public Analyst, Ext. 4 and was adulterated as defined in section 2(1)(a) or (b) or (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sibsagar, before whom the petitioner was prosecuted, held him guilty of the offence with which he was charged. He was convicted under section 7 read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act on the basis of the admission above and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to a further rigorous imprisonment for three months, The learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. 3. 1,000/- and in default, to a further rigorous imprisonment for three months, The learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. 3. In principle the High Court in its revisional jurisdic­tion ordinarily does not interfere with the order of conviction, except where the interest of justice requires interference for correc­tion of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross mis­carriage of justice. The High Court will, however, interfere when there is some glaring defects in the view of the law or evide­nce leading to a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 4. In this case, both the courts below based the conviction on the prosecution case, as unfolded through the testimony of P.W.1, Dr. L. S. Phukan, Food Inspector. I have carefully gone through the evidence of the witnesses with the assistance of the learned counsel of both the parties. This witness P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief, stated that both of them were brought to the Municipal Office on 31.8.81, and after giving notice to them in Form No. VI, Ext. I, he took sample of the milk for analysis by Public Analyst and receipt was also given, Ext. 2, to both of them. The witness also deposed that the petiti­oner told him that the milk belonged to him and that Ram Gulam Mandal was his servant. 5. It appears that both the courts below have not read the evidence of this witness in its true perspective. This witness contradicted himself by his own statement in examination-in-chief that the petitioner, Rameswar, came subsequently after the notice was given to the other accused and that his thumb mark was obtained thereon. This fact is supported by the evidence of witness, P.W.3, Babula Nath Kataki, who stated that the milk was taken from Ram Gulam Mandal, since absconded, and he put his signature, Ext. 1, after Ram Gulam had put his thumb mark on it and that P.W.I purchased the milk from Ram Gulam Mandal. He put his two signatures en Exts. 1 and 2. It is also in evidence from his testimony that he did not see Rameswar, the petitioner on the date of occurrence. The statement of P.W.I, Dr. L. S. Phukan, appe­aring in his statement in examination-in-chief that he gave notice in Form No. VI and also purchased the sample of the milk from two accused persons by giving receipt Ext. It is also in evidence from his testimony that he did not see Rameswar, the petitioner on the date of occurrence. The statement of P.W.I, Dr. L. S. Phukan, appe­aring in his statement in examination-in-chief that he gave notice in Form No. VI and also purchased the sample of the milk from two accused persons by giving receipt Ext. 2 to them stood falsified. At another part of his statement-in-chief, as adverted to, he stated that accused Rameswar came after­wards and that he obtained the signatures of the accused Rameswar on Exts. 1 and 2. It is thus established that the sample of the milk was taken with the issue of the notice and receipt only from accused Ram Gulam Mandal and not from both the accused. This finding is reinforced by the documen­tary evidence. In Ext. 3 which is the copy of the forwarding Memo, to the Public Analyst in Form VII, only the name of the vendor Ram Gulam Mandal was mentioned and not the name of the accused Rameswar. Similarly, in the report of the Public Analyst in Form No. III, Ext. 4, only the name of the vendor Ram Gulam Mandal appears. 6. That the milk was adulterated cannot be questioned, and adulteration of the milk intended for supply to the pati­ents of the Civil Hospital certainly shakes our conscience and it is highly reprehensible. But the question is whether in this case, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused to hilt. 7. The alleged statement to the P.W.1, is an admission as defined in section 17 of the Evidence Act, which can be used against the petitioner, and it can be the foundation of con­viction provided it is duly proved. It is an extra judicial admission, as distinguished from judicial admission; and extra judicial admission is an informal admission not appearing an records. 8 The accused, Rameswar Singh, who is the petitioner before me, challenged the alleged admission above. It is in evidence that P.W.I. Food Inspector, admitted in his cross-exa­mination that the milk was supplied by contractors of the Civil Hospital, but he had not traced out the said contractors. It was not a case of the prosecution that the accused Rameswar, petitioner before me, was the contractor to supply the milk to the Hospital. It is in evidence that P.W.I. Food Inspector, admitted in his cross-exa­mination that the milk was supplied by contractors of the Civil Hospital, but he had not traced out the said contractors. It was not a case of the prosecution that the accused Rameswar, petitioner before me, was the contractor to supply the milk to the Hospital. Learned Sessions Judge held the view that even if some contractors were supplied of the milk, the same might still belong to the petitioner, as the milk might have been only routed through the contractors. This view of the learned Sessions Judge is palpably erroneous not being based on any legal evidence but was based on surmise or conjecture. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in his judgment has not also mentioned about the supply of the milk to the hospital by the contractors, as admitted by P.W. 1, Food Inspector. There is no evidence that the petitioner was one of the contractors, who supplied milk to the hospital, nor is there any evidence; to show that he was employed by those contractors in conn­ection with the supply of the milk to the hospital. The accused in his examination under section 313, Cr.P.C. stated that the milk did not belong to him; it belonged to Baruah and Rajkhowa, who took contract for supply to the Civil Hospital, He further stated that he was sent for by Barua and Rajkhowa to see as to what had happened to the other man. He came to the Municipality office and found the other man from whom milk had been seized and his signatures were also obtained thereafter. The statement above of the accused are consistent with the admission P.W. 1 in his cross-examination that the milk was supplied by the contractors of the Civil Hospital and that he did not trace out the said contractor. The above fact runs counter to the alleged admission of the accused on which conviction was based. 9. It is well settled that the statements of an accused recorded under Section 313. Cr. P. C. must be treated like any other piece of evidence coming from the mouth of a witness and matters in favour of the accused must be viewed with deference and given as much weight as matters which tell agai­nst him. 9. It is well settled that the statements of an accused recorded under Section 313. Cr. P. C. must be treated like any other piece of evidence coming from the mouth of a witness and matters in favour of the accused must be viewed with deference and given as much weight as matters which tell agai­nst him. Because of the presumption of innocence in his favour even when he has not in a position to prove the truth of his story, his version should be accepted if it is reasonable and accords with probabilities unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is false. See Hate Singh Bhagat Singh vs. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1953 SC 468 . The object of examination of accused under Section 342, Cr. P.C. now section 313, Cr. P.C. is to give the accused an opportunity to explain the case made against him and that the statement can be taken into consideration in judging the innocence or guilt of the person so accused. 10. It appears that it escaped the notice of both the Courts below that P.W.I, Food Inspector, did not depose that the word 'master' appearing in exhibits 1 and 2 was written in his own hand. He only proved the signatures of the peti­tioner on these two exhibits, which the accused also admitted. On a close examination of these two documents, the word 'master' appears to be in a different ink also. It is very doubt­ful as to whether the word "master" was written in both the exhibits 1 and 2, at the time when the petitioner's signatures were obtained on them. If the accused Rameswar had made the alleged extra judicial admission as deposed to by P.W.I, he could have obtained the statements of a paper because according to the witness the accused admitted to him that he was the master and that the milk belonged to him. The statement of this witness, P.W.I, Food Inspector, in regard to the alleged admission to him, cannot be accepted on its face value. The circumstances above and his self contradic­tory statements discussed above indubitably leads one to conclude that the story of the alleged admission by the accused before him is an after-thought. There is no other evidence to corro­borate him on this point. On the contrary, the circumstances of the case has demolished the prosecution case. The circumstances above and his self contradic­tory statements discussed above indubitably leads one to conclude that the story of the alleged admission by the accused before him is an after-thought. There is no other evidence to corro­borate him on this point. On the contrary, the circumstances of the case has demolished the prosecution case. The evidence of the prosecution has been grossly mis-appreciated, and the accused's statements were not at all taken into consideration in judging the innocence or guilt of this accused, resulting thereby in miscarriage of justice. 11. In view of the foregoing discussions, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such the accused is entitled to be acquitted. 12. In the result, the revision petition is accepted. The petitioner is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged. The petitioner who is on bail need not surrender to his bail bond. The fine if realised shall be refunded to the petitioner.