JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has been convicted under section 7/16 P.E Act and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the courts below. 2. The prosecution case is that on 26.12.80, the Food Inspector demanded 'Deshi Ghee' for taking samples, but he was provided/sold 'Vanaspati Ghee' as such, the petitioner was guilty of misbranding an article of food. It is not disputed before me that the 'Ghee' sold by the petitioner fulfilled the prescribed standard of 'Vanaspati Ghee' and it was not adulterated. The charge against the petitioner was of mis-branding. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held the petitioner guilty of mis-branding on the ground that F.s. 11.20 were charged as price of 450 Grams of Ghee and the rate of 'Vanaspati Ghee' was much lesser than 'Deshi Ghee'. This finding was confirmed by the lower appellant court. 3. Normally, this Court does not interfere with a finding of fact while exercising revisional jurisdiction. However, in the instant case, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record as well as the judgments under challenge, I find that the approach of the learned courts below in apprechating the evidence is not proper. As stated, the finding of mis-branding was recorded on the ground that Rs. 11.20 were paid by the Food Inspector as price of 450 Grams of 'Ghee' and so much could not have been as the price of 'Vanaspati Ghee'. 4. I examined the material on record to find out whether there is any evidence about the price of 'Vanaspati Ghee' or 'Deshi Ghee' on the day of taking of the sample ? After going through the entire material I find that there is no evidence or material whatsoever, to show that the price charged by the petitioner could not be the price of Vanaspati. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not show any evidence on the basis of which the finding of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is sustainable. 5. In view of the above situation, I examined the evidence on record. P.W. 1 is the Food Inspector. He took sample in the presence of P.W. 2, Ram Char an and D.W. 1 Rakesh Sharma. The Food Inspector was specifically put a question in cross-examination that the sample of Vanaspati was taken in his presence, but he denied this fact. In view of the above situation, I examined the evidence on record. P.W. 1 is the Food Inspector. He took sample in the presence of P.W. 2, Ram Char an and D.W. 1 Rakesh Sharma. The Food Inspector was specifically put a question in cross-examination that the sample of Vanaspati was taken in his presence, but he denied this fact. P.W. 2, Ram Charan, in his examination-in-chief, though, tried to support the prosecution case, but in cross-examination he stated that he did not remember whether 'Vanaspati Ghee' was there in the shop of the petitioner or not ?He also stated that sample of 'Deshi Ghee' was taken and this fact was mentioned in the documents Ex.P. 1, P. 2 and P. 3 prepared at the time of taking of sample. He also stated that the Food Inspector had read over these documents which contained that 'Deshi Ghee' was sold and thereafter, he put his signatures. When the witness was confronted with these documents that they did not contain that 'Deshi Ghee' was sold by the petitioner, the witness agreed to be so, but again he reiterated that in all the memos 'Deshi Ghee' was specifically mentioned and he was unable to say how it happened so. 6. D.W. 1, Rakesh Sharma was another motbir witness. He was not examined by the prosecution for the reason best known to it. The sample was taken in his presence and the memos Exhibits P. 1, P. 2 and P. 3 contained his signatures. He has categorically stated that the sample of Vanaspati was taken by the Food Inspector and Rs. 11.20 was charged as the price of the 'Vanaspati Ghee'. He has been cross-examined at length, but nothing substantial has come out to discredit his evidence. He denied that the price of 'Deshi Ghee' was Rs. 50/- per Kg. in the year 1981. 7. It is true that the word 'Ghee' indicates pure clarified fat derived solely from milk, curd or from Deshi butter. From the evidence referred above, a reasonable doubt is created that 'Vanaspati Ghee' was sold by the petitioner, disclosing it to be 'Deshi Ghee', as the evidence is conflicting. The evidence led by the prosecution is also not convincing and I do not find any ground to disbelieve D.W. 1 Rakesh Sharma. From the evidence referred above, a reasonable doubt is created that 'Vanaspati Ghee' was sold by the petitioner, disclosing it to be 'Deshi Ghee', as the evidence is conflicting. The evidence led by the prosecution is also not convincing and I do not find any ground to disbelieve D.W. 1 Rakesh Sharma. The offence of mis-branding cannot be said to be proved simply by the fact that in the memos Ex.P. 1 to Ex.P. 3 the word 'Ghee' has been mentioned as the article sold to the Food- Inspector. 8. It also does not appeal to me that the petitioner would have sold 'Vanaspati Ghee' disclosing it to be 'Deshi Ghee' knowing well that the same was being taken by the Food Inspector for examination and the same shall be examined by the Public Analyst. Nobody would put himself in trouble knowingly and it goes against the human nature. 9. Hence, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 10. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is set aside. The sentences awarded to him are also set aside. He is acquitted of the charge. He need not surrender to his bail bonds. The amount of fine, if deposited, shall be refunded. *******