JUDGMENT S.R. Bhargava, J. - This revision is directed against conviction and sentence of the revisionist by the lower courts for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Prosecution case is that on 26th March, 1980 at about 9 a. m. Food Inspector apprehended revisionist Rajaram carrying guilt in a can hung on a cycle. On interrogation revisionist disclosed that it was cow and buffalo mixed milk. Food Inspector purchased sample of his milk from the revisionist. He divided the sample into three equal parts and after adding necessary quantity of formalin 40% he sealed each of the parts in separate phials. He sent one of the phials to the public analyst according to the prescribed rules. Public Analyst found that tho milk contained fat 6.7% and non-fatty solids 7.1%., against prescribed standard of 4.5%; and 8.5% respectively. The aggregate of the two contents was more than the prescribed standard but the non-fatty solids were below prescribed standard. Both the lower Courts found the appellant guilty of selling adulterated milk and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 3. The only point argued in this revision is that there is no evidence that before taking sample the Food Inspector stirred the milk and thereafter took a homogenous sample. It was vehemently argued that even in the month of March when milk is being taken in a can hung on a cycle at 9 a. m. due to process of churning fat may come on the top and if sample is not made homogenous by stirring the fat contents in the sample would be more and the non-fatty solids would be lesser than the prescribed standards. It is borne out from the record that the Food Inspector did not state that before taking sample he stirred the milk and made it homogenous. In absence of such evidence it cannot be said that homogenous sample was taken. When there is defect in the process of taking of sample benefit of doubt would go to the accused. 4. Hence, in result, I grant benefit of doubt to the revisionist. Revision is allowed. His conviction and sentence are set aside. He is acquitted of the charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Fine, if any deposited by him, shall be refunded to him. Revisionist is on bail. 4. Hence, in result, I grant benefit of doubt to the revisionist. Revision is allowed. His conviction and sentence are set aside. He is acquitted of the charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Fine, if any deposited by him, shall be refunded to him. Revisionist is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender.