JUDGMENT S.K. Kaul, J. 1. This is a revision by Sri Krishan against his sentence and conviction to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment aswell as a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months more under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Prosecution case is that at about 11.30 a.m. on September 26, 1977, Sri Krishan was found selling milk near Qaiserbagh Bus Stand in the City of Lucknow. Food Inspector Sri P.D. Srivastava took a sample of milk to the extent of 660 mililitres and paid Rs. 1.50 as price for the same. Relevant papers were prepared in that connection and sample was divided into three parts and formalin in the usual quantity was added to the sample. The sample was sealed and stored and one phial was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst was that the sample was deficient in 12 per cent in fatty solids and 2 per cent in non-fatty solids, if she-buffalo's standard was taken into consideration. Thereafter, sanction was accorded by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari and then a complaint was filed against the accused, on the basis of which he was asked to stand his trial by the Magistrate, who took cognizance of the complaint under Section 7/16 of the Act. The defence of the accused was denial. 3. Learned Magistrate found that the prosecution story was fully made out and, as such, he sentenced and convicted the accused as above. The revisionist went up in appeal, but remained unsuccessful. 4. It is in these circumstances that a revision has been preferred in this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist. In my view this revision should be allowed. 5. It is significant to note that there is no evidence either oral or documentary to show what was the quality of the: milk that was taken as sample, namely, whether it was cow's milk or she-buffalo's milk, or a mixture of cow and she buffalo's milk. It was the duty of the prosecution to have proved and shown that the sample taken was she buffalo's milk. In the absence of any such evidence, I am afraid it cannot be urged that the standard prescribed for she-buffalo's milk should be taken into consideration. It was the duty of the prosecution to have proved and shown that the sample taken was she buffalo's milk. In the absence of any such evidence, I am afraid it cannot be urged that the standard prescribed for she-buffalo's milk should be taken into consideration. Indeed, in the absence of any such positive evidence, it will be open to the accused to argue that the sample taken from him was either cow's milk or a mixture of cow and she-buffalo's milk. Whether we take the standard of cow's milk or a mixtures of cow and she buffalo's milk, it is obvious that the sample would conform to the prescribed standard. That being so, I am afraid, in the instant case it cannot be urged that the accused has committed any offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act. I would like to observe for the benefit of the Food Inspectors that it is their duty to enquire from the sellers, the origin of the milk, namely, whether it is cow's or she-buffalo's milk or a mixture of cow and she- buffalo's milk and the same should be mentioned in the relevant papers that are prepared on the spot. It is only then that the relevant standard prescribed in the Act for particular type of milk can be applied. It is surprising how the Public Analyst had assumed that the sample sent to him was of she-buffalo milk, (sic) in the document addressed to him. 6. I would allow the revision, set aside the sentence and conviction awarded to the accused under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and acquit him of the same. The revisionist is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. 7. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded. Revision allowed.