JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, whereby he confirmed the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, in revision petition before us. The relevant facts found by the courts below are that on 6.11.81 while he was inspecting Kafla Bazar, Tonk, he saw a person on cycle carrying two drums of milk. The milk was for sell. 6.60 ml. milk was purchased from the accused by the Inspector. It was equally divided in three bottles for samples. Samples were sealed and sent for examination to the Analyst. After examination by Analyst the milk was found adulterated. It contained milk fat 5.6 per cent and milk solid non-fat 7.44 per cent. After receipt of Analyst report, permission for prosecution was obtained from competent authority and case was filed in the court. Prosecution has examined three witnesses PW-1 Shri Kutbuddin, PW-2 Bajranglal and PW-3 Vahid. Statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence DW-1 Ahmed Bux was produced. Considering material on records, statement of prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses and statement of accused, trial Court came to the conclusion that accused-petitioner is liable for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He was convicted for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced one year imprisonment and fine of 1000/- in default of payment of fine further undergo three months R.I. 2. Being dis-satisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, accused- petitioner filed an appeal in the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the conviction as well as sentence. Being dis-satisfied with the judgment of both the courts below, accused-petitioner filed this revision petition. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, Shri N.A. Naqvi submitted that facts stated and found by the courts below, are not in dispute but the conviction was not justified on the basis of contents found in the sample by the Analyst. In this sample the milk fat found 5.6 per cent and milk solid non-fat found 7.44 per cent. As per rules in case of mixed milk milk fat should be 4.5 per cent and milk solid non-fat should be 8.5 per cent. In this sample the milk fat found 5.6 per cent and milk solid non-fat found 7.44 per cent. As per rules in case of mixed milk milk fat should be 4.5 per cent and milk solid non-fat should be 8.5 per cent. Thus, the milk fat is little more than the prescribed standard while the milk solid non-fat is little less than the prescribed standard under the rules. That can be for the reason that cow was not properly feed and it cannot be said in such cases that milk was adulterated. Therefore, there is no justification in convicting the accused-petitioner. For that he relied on 1979 RCC 65, 1978 RCC 325. On the other hand the learned P.P. relied on the judgment of courts below. 3. I heard the rival submissions and considered the material on record. The factual position stated above is not in dispute. In Parasram v. The State of Rajasthan, 1978 RCC 325 , wherein a view has been taken 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 percent-age 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 justified 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." 4. In State v. Dataram, 1979 Rajasthan Criminal Cases 65, again the similar issue was considered and held that fat contains found higher than prescribed and non-fat solids were below standard. Inference can be drawn that either cow was not properly feed or Analyst was erroneous. No inference can be drawn that milk was not pure, as such, milk cannot be held to be adulterated. Following consistent view on the issue the case in hand is squarely covered by the cases Supra. Therefore, in my view the courts below have wrongly treated the milk in question adulterated. There is no justification in conviction. 5. In the result, conviction and sentence is set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charge. His bail bonds are discharged.Revision allowed. *******