JUDGMENT 1. - A complaint was preferred under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for short "the Act of 1954" against the petitioner in the Court of CJM, Kota vide Case No. 211 /78 on 13.8.1984 on the grounds inter-ruin that the petitioner who is a milk vendor had indulged in adulteration of milk which was meant for sale to the respective customers. After the seizure of sample of milk on 25.5.1978 the same was sent to Public Analyst, Kota on 26.5.1978 for its opinion. After the receipt of the report from the Public Analyst it was discovered that though the milk was of the requisite quantity of prescribed Fat contents but, as regards its Non-fat Solids for which the prescribed standard is 8.5 it was found deficient i.e. 6.6 Non-fat Solids. The Trial Court had consequently in order to dispel any doubt sent samples to Central Laboratory Ghaziabad for its opinion and the Laboratory at Ghaziabad sent its report with the opinion that the contents of Non- fat Solids is 6.9. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that in such a situation where there is variance in difference of opinion between two Laboratories i.e. Public Analyst, Kota and Central Laboratory, Ghaziabad as in the instant case, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused.Impugned judgment, conviction and order of sentence set aside. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor on this aspect. Learned Public Prosecutor has stated that notwithstanding the deficiency in the milk as reported by the aforesaid laboratories, this does not improve the case of the accused since admittedly the milk in question was falling short of prescribed standard as regards its Non- fat Solids. 4. Prima facie, I am of the view that since the samples of milk in question which were seized by the prosecution are not falling short of the prescribed standard as regards their Fat contents and difference of opinion is there between two laboratories i.e. Public Analyst, Kota and Central Laboratory, Ghaziabad according to which the milk was falling short of prescribed standard as regards Non-fat Solids i.e. 6.6 & 6.9, respectively, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused. In an identical case involving the similar controversy arose for consideration of this Court in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 23/1981 (State v. Data Rain) decided on 2.12.1988 . the benefit of doubt was extended to the accused. In that case, Fat contents in the milk samples which were seized by the prosecution were found higher than prescribed standard while the contents of Non-fat Solids were found below the prescribed standard. It was held by this Court that no inference can be drawn against the accused that milk was not pure and as such it was further held that since the seized samples of the milk could not be held to be adulterated, consequently the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused and with this observation, this Court acquitted the accused of the charge. In the instant case, I am also of the similar view that the accused deserves benefit of doubt which should be extended to him since there is difference of opinion between two laboratories i.e. Public Analyst, Kota and Central Laboratory, Ghaziabad according to which, the contents of milk as regards Non-fat Solids were 6.6 & 6.9, respectively, while the contents of milk as regards Fat were of the prescribed standard and hence, in my view, the seized milk cannot be construed as adulterated. 5. During the course of hearing I am informed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the conviction of the accused vide impugned order dated 13.8.1984 passed by learned CJM, Kota and consequent decision of the First Appellate Court i.e. learned DJ, Kota dated 13.1.1999, the accused has already undergone the total period of about 41 days of his sentence in custody. 6. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.1.1999 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Kota in Criminal Appeal No. 8/1999 and the order dated 13.8.1984 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota in Criminal Case No. 211/1978 are quashed and set aside. The accused-petitioner shall be released forthwith if not wanted by the prosecution in any other case. However, the fine already deposited by the petitioner shall not be refunded.Petition allowed. *******