JUDGMENT 1. - The facts, in brief, giving rise to this revision petition, are that a sample of milk was taken from the petitioner on 29.6.78, & since it was found to be adulterated as per report of the Public Analyst, dated 10.7.78, a challan was filed in the court. The petitioner submitted an application that another sample may be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. The Director, Central Food Laboratory sent his report on 10/11.3.1980, that the sample had de-composed, therefore, it was not possible to analyse the sample thereupon, the prosecution requested the court that the third sample be also sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The application was allowed and the Director, Central Food Laboratory vide its report dated 16.2.1982 found that the sample was adulterated. 2. After recording evidence, including the two experts, both on behalf of the prosecution as well as the defence, the trial court convicted the accused petitioner. His appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. It is against that order, that the present revision petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently submitted that the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and since the Director, Central Food Laboratory vide its letter dated 10/11-3-1980 found that the sample had de-composed and it was not possible to analyse the sample. The trial court had no jurisdiction to send the third sample for analysis. In this connection, he has placed reliance on Ram Prakash v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1978 (2) B.A C. 79) which has been relied in Darshan Lal v. State of Punjab 1982(1) F.A.C. 290) (P&H) wherein it has been observed found that if the Director of Central Food Laboratory finds that the sample has decomposed, it does not fall within the meaning of loss or damage mentioned in proviso to Sec. 13(2) (c). He has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Kajod Mal v. State of Rajasthan (1980(2) F.A.C. 76) wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the court should not have sent the third sample for report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory. 4. Reliance has also been placed on the statement of Shri P.N. Bhargava, PW-1. 4. Reliance has also been placed on the statement of Shri P.N. Bhargava, PW-1. who has stated that the difference between the two analysis reports cannot be more than 0.5%, otherwise it should be presumed that it is not the same sample, and in this connection, be has placed reliance on 1979 R.L.W. 307. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory had been received about four years and it was not possible for that the sample should not have de-composed by that time, specially in view of the statement of DW 1 P.N. Bhargava. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Devkinandan v. State (1984 RCC 353) . 6. Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Shyam Arya, was present in court on 2.1.1991 when the case was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since Mr. Arya was not prepared to argue, as he had not seen the file, the case was adjourned for today so that Mr. Arya could study the points. Today also Mr. Shyam Arya is not present in court. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the State in spite of the fact that the Peon was sent to call for Mr. Arya or any other Govt. Advocate. I have already waited enough. 7. I have looked into the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and nothing contrary has been cited on behalf of the non-petitioner State. Therefore, I do not propose to discuss the matter in detail and leave all these points open to be decided in some other case when the matter is heard and the State is represented. I have looked into the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and nothing contrary has been cited on behalf of the non-petitioner State. Therefore, I do not propose to discuss the matter in detail and leave all these points open to be decided in some other case when the matter is heard and the State is represented. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the sample was taken in the year 1978, the accused petitioner had been suffering litigation for the last more than twelve years, the Director, Central Food Laboratory, had at one stage opined that since the sample had de-composed, it was not possible for him to give his opinion but lateron when the third sample was sent, the Director opined after nearly four years that the sample was adulterated, the experts examined on behalf of the petitioner who had stated that if the samples are taken correctly, the difference between the two reports, that of the Public Analyst and that of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, could not be such as in the present case, I think it will be in the interest of justice to give benefit of doubt to the petitioner. 8. At this stage, Shri Shyam Arya, learned counsel for the State, appeared in the court and stated that he has not been able to find any other view contrary to with Mr. Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted. 9. In the result, revision petition is allowed, the judgment/order of the learned courts below, convicting and sentencing the petitioner, are set aside and the accused petitioner is given benefit of doubt. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender his bail bonds. The same are discharged. *******