JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the accused-respondent in an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'). It is not disputed that the Food Inspector of Bharatpur intercepted the accused-respondent on 5.8.72 while the letter was carrying milk in a can for sale, and purchased 660 gms. of milk from the accused for analysis purpose. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst who vide his report dated 12.9.1972 (Ex. P 5) found the sample of milk adulterated by reason of its containing about 8% of added water and further found in the milk, fat contents 6.1%, solids non-fat 8.26%, and cane sugar and starch nil. The aforesaid contents in the milk were not as per the prescribed standard according to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The learned trial Court while placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Parasram v. State of Rajasthan, 1978 Raj. Cri. Cases p. 324 , acquitted the accused-respondent. In the cited case (supra), it has been observed that, whether milk containing higher percentage of fatty solid and lower percentage of non fatty solid than the prescribed standard can be termed adulterated under the Act - the higher percentage of fatty solid leads to the inference that no water added to milk - in such cases the presence of non fatty solid below the standard justifies the inference that either the cow was not given proper feed or that the report of public analyst was erroneous but not the inference that the milk in question was not pure. 2. The decision in Parasram v. State (supra) is over-ruled holding it not to be a good law, subsequently by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ganpat, 1980 Raj Cri. 2. The decision in Parasram v. State (supra) is over-ruled holding it not to be a good law, subsequently by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ganpat, 1980 Raj Cri. Cases p. 200 wherein the sample of milk taken by the Food Inspector was found to be adulterated on examination by the Public Analyst - it was observed that as per the standard prescribed by the Central Government the minimum percentage of milk fat and milk solid non fat for cow's milk in Rajasthan is 3.5% and 8.5% respectively - any person who sells milk, which is not of the quality, contravenes the provisions of the Act and thereby he commits an offence - if the solids other than fat or fats are less than the prescribed minimum, the sample of the milk will be taken to be adulterated within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(i) of the Act regardless of the fact that the total percentage of solids other then fat and fats equal or exceed the total percentage of the two ingredients put together; and it was held that it is not within the scope and province of the court of law to question the reasonableness or correctness of the standard so prescribed. The Act has not made a distinction between the cases on the basis of the degree of adulteration. The offence is punishable whether the offence is greater or small. 3. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused-respondent which has been based on a decision which itself, has been over-ruled subsequently by the Division Bench of this Court, as stated above, becomes bad in law. Confronted with the above situation of law, learned counsel for the accused-respondent did not raise any other point so as to justify the judgment of acquittal. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the judgment of acquittal he quashed in view of the subsequent decision of the Division Bench which has over-ruled earlier judgment on the basis of which the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor then added that the accused-respondent be held guilty of the offence charged. 4. Now the decks are clear. And, this Court, upon the charge of law position as stated above, has left with no alternative but to hold the accused-respondent guilty. The learned Public Prosecutor then added that the accused-respondent be held guilty of the offence charged. 4. Now the decks are clear. And, this Court, upon the charge of law position as stated above, has left with no alternative but to hold the accused-respondent guilty. Then, the question remains to be considered and emerged in the present case is as to what sentence should be passed against the accused-respondent for the offence proved against him. There is no dispute that the offence is said to have been committed in the year 1972 - the respondent had been acquitted in the year 1978 now we are in the year 1988 - as per the report (Ex. P. 5) of the Public Analyst the sample was found to be adulterated as said earlier and the respondent, in view of the changed circumstances in legal position as pointed out above, has been held guilty for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act. However, so far as the sentence is concerned, I must observe that in Ramdas Bhikaji v. Sadanand, 1980 (1) S. C. C. P. 550 while maintaining the conviction of the accused, the Apex Court observed, "we do not think that we should take those facts into consideration while imposing the sentence on the respondent". In that case (supra), the accused was not sent to jail and only fine was imposed. 5. In Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Man Mohanlal and another, 1983 Cr. L. R. (SC) p 146 , it has been observed that since the offence was committed at a time when S. 20AA was not on the statute book and there was no prohibition against giving benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to a person convicted of an offence under the Act, it would not be unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case in releasing the first respondent on probation. 6. 6. Having considered all these peculiar circumstances of the case so also the report of the Public Analyst inasmuch as the afore cited decision of the Apex Court and coupled with the fact that the offence is said to have been committed in the year 1972, I feel it justified that the present accused-respondent should be enlarged on probation; and the action taken by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Man Mohanlal (supra) should be followed in a latter and spirit, because the offence in the present case has been committed in the year 1972 and Section 20AA of the Act has been subsequently added in the statute book; and that, there was no prohibition against giving benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to a person convicted of an offence under the Act before the insertion of Section 20AA of the Act. Thus, I feel it justified to release the accused-respondent on probation. 7. In the result, I accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur, in Cr. case No 347/76 and after convicting the accused-respondent, Balkishan, of the offence under s. 16 read with s. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, I direct that he be released on entering into a bond for one thousand rupees with one surety in the like amount, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year and in the mean time to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The bonds may be executed before the trial Court within two months from today. *******