JUDGMENT This revision has been directed against the finding of holding the accused petitioner guilty for committing an offence punishable under section 7/1 read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act in short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months. The petitioner was prosecuted for adulteration in ground-nut oil in the Court of J.M.F.O. Patan, district Jabalpur, on a complaint lodged by the non-applicant No. 2. The petitioner challenged the report of Public Analyst. The trial Court sent the second sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. The said certificate received by the trial Court from the Director of Central Food Laboratory mentioned that the Free Fatty Acid was more by 1.086% from the required standard of purity at that time. On the said basis the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said finding and sentence which was pending in the Court of Second Addl. Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. During the pendency of the said appeal, the standard of purity was revised with effect from 8.4.88 and the ground-nut oil which was being sold by the present petitioner came within the range of purity as prescribed under the Act. Therefore, it has been urged, the appellate Court was required to apply the said law retrospectively but it refused to do so and held the accused-appellant guilty and sentenced him, as detailed above. Relying on 1986 FAJ 584 [B.L. Kohli and another v. Delhi Administration] 1989 FAJ 445 [Akola Oil Industries v. Badhuram Marandij and 1994 FAJ 299 [Prem Chand v. State of Haryana] as well as the order passed by this Court in M.Cr. C.No. 575/91 [Ramesh Kumar and 2 others v. State of M.P.] on 24.8.91, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the new standard should have been given retrospective operation and the accused could not have been held guilty. I have carefully gone through the record and the amendment incorporated in the standard of ground-nut oil. C.No. 575/91 [Ramesh Kumar and 2 others v. State of M.P.] on 24.8.91, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the new standard should have been given retrospective operation and the accused could not have been held guilty. I have carefully gone through the record and the amendment incorporated in the standard of ground-nut oil. In my opinion, Free Fatty Acid as Oleic Acid and Acid value are one and the same thing. Even if the view taken by the trial Court is accepted as correct, now there is no standard prescribed for Free Fatty Acid as Oleic Acid and, therefore, in absence of such a standard, the sample cannot be said to be adulterated. Further, only latter was required to be changed which has been changed by amendment. The word percent has not been deleted. Consequently, in any case, now the accused cannot be held guilty for selling sub-standard or adulterated ground-nut oil. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and finding of holding the accused-appellant guilty and sentence awarded to him are set aside. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned. Certified copy of this order be given on payment of usual charges.