Dalveer Bhandari, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge passed in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1997. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this revision petition are recapitulated as under: ( 2 ) ON 20. 5. 1987 a team of Food Inspectors visited the Kirana Shop of the petitioner. According to the prosecution, the petitioner purchased 550 gms of Anardana whole for analysis. The sample was divided into three parts after mixing properly the food article in accordance with the PFA Act and Rules. In accordance with the PFA Act and Rules, the process of packing, marking, fastening, sealing, etc. was also completed. The report of the Public Analyst stated that sample does not conform to the standard as per Section 2 (ix) as the food article has been kept in insanitary condition as sample contained large number of Rodent Excreta (361/kg and hair 13 per Kg. ). Accordingly, it was held that the petitioner had violated the provisions of Section 2 (ia) (a) (b) punishable under Section 16 (1) (1a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined S. R. Nimje, LDC (Public Witness -1), Dr. G. C. Raha, LHA (Public Witness -2) and the Food Inspector who purchased a sample of Anardana from the accused No. 1 and Mr. P. C. Tiwari (Public Witness -4) who had joined as witness by K. K. Mittal, Food Inspector to the sample proceedings. ( 3 ) THE petitioner examined Dr. K. V. Nagaraja, Director, CFL, Mysore. He had also examined himself as DW-1. The Petitioner stated that he bought one kilogram Anardana for sale at his shop. He also stated that during the previous night of the incident the rats damaged the packet and the contents were scattered all over the floor. He swept the floor and kept this sweeping in the `garbage tin and the sample was picked up from the garbage tin. He stated that Anardana in question was not fit for sale when Anardana contained half of Rodent Excreta. He further stated that a shopkeeper could neither sell the same nor any customer would buy the Anardana with Rodent Excreta. He stated that Anardana in question was not fit for sale when Anardana contained half of Rodent Excreta. He further stated that a shopkeeper could neither sell the same nor any customer would buy the Anardana with Rodent Excreta. However, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to one year s R. I. and fine of Rs. 2,000. 00. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the order, the appeal was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while upholding the conviction reduced the sentence from one year to six months rigourous imprisonment and a fine from Rs. 2,000. 00 to Rs. 1,000. 00. ( 5 ) THE petitioner aggrieved by that judgment has preferred TO this revision petition before this Court. Ms Neeta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that conviction under aforesaid provision is totally unsustainable in law. She submitted that findings of the Court below do not pass the test of human probabilities and conviction of the petitioner is unsustainable and needs to be set aside. She submitted that Anardana in question was thrown in the garbage tin because it was damaged by the rats and it contained substantial quantity of Rodent Excreta and hair which could not have been sold. Despite stiff resistance by the petitioner, the Food Inspector was adamant on taking sample from waste paper basket. ( 6 ) MS Thakur also submitted that in small quantity of 550 gms if there were 361 per Kg and hair 13 per Kg. , the same could not have been sold because it was visible from the naked eye from a reasonable distance. She submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. She placed reliance on the the decision in Public Prosecutor Vs Y. Pulla Reddy reported as AIR 1996 Andhra Pradesh 302. She submitted that it was indeed a case of compulsive sale. She submitted that a sale would be a voluntary transaction and a seizure or compulsory acquisition in exercise of statutory power is not a sale within the ordinary sense of that word. Nor does the definition of `sale in Section 2 (xiii) as including a sale of food for analysis make it one, for, the first requisite even under the definition is that there must be a sale. Nor does the definition of `sale in Section 2 (xiii) as including a sale of food for analysis make it one, for, the first requisite even under the definition is that there must be a sale. ( 7 ) MS Thakur submitted that it was a case of compulsive seizure of Anardana by the Food Inspector against the will of the petitioner. The petitioner resisted because the sample which was taken was from the `garbage tin and it was not meant for sale. No customer would ever purchase such Anardana. She submitted that rodent excreta is not available in the market so that any shopkeeper can purchase and adulterate with Anardana or with any other commodity. She submitted that the entire prosecution version is totally devoid of any logic, common sense or truth. ( 8 ) MS Thakur submitted that the entire case has not been appreciated by the Courts below in proper perspective. The most material circumstance which is clearly borne out from the statement of the petitioner had been totally brushed aside by the Courts below that the sample of Anardana was picked up from the `garbage tin which was not meant for sale and certainly unfit for the human consumption. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the State submitted that no interference is called for in the well reasoned judgment of the Courts below. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties in this case. The defence version that the Anardana was damaged by rats and was thrown in the dustbin ought not to have been disregarded. Any sample taken from the dustbin could not have been fit for human consumption. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire prosecution version is devoid of any logic, common sense and truth has considerable force. The `rodent Excreta is not available in market or elsewhere, which any shopkeeper may use for adulteration. The defence version that the `anardana was damaged by the rats so it was thrown in the dustbin seems to be more probable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The trial court erred in ignoring the defence version altogether. ( 10 ) I am of the considered view that the entire case has not been examined by both the Courts in proper perspective. The trial court erred in ignoring the defence version altogether. ( 10 ) I am of the considered view that the entire case has not been examined by both the Courts in proper perspective. On the facts and circumstances of this case the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The accused is acquitted of the aforesaid charges. Fine if paid, shall be refunded to him. ( 11 ) REVISION Petition is allowed and disposed of.