JUDGMENT S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The conviction has upheld in the appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra and hence this revision has been filed before this Court. 2. According to the case of the complainant, the petitioner was carrying three drums of cows milk for sale out of which 660 millilitres of milk was taken as sample which was purchased for Rs. 1.65. On analysis it was found adulterated as the milk solids not fat in the same were 5.6 per cent as against the minimum prescribed standard of 8.5 per cent. 3. I have heard learned District Attorney for the State. As the members of the bar are on strike today, none has appeared for the petitioner. 4. According to the stand of the petitioner, Dr. R.K. Shrama, Deputy CMO, Kurukshetra who appeared as PW3 the petitioner had himself stirred the milk with one litre measuring vessel. It is found from the cross-examination of PW3 that he has so mentioned. 5. The contents of the milk, according to the case of the complainant, contained milk fat 8.2 per cent and milk solids not fat 5.6 per cent. Therefore, the milk fat was found to be more than the prescribed one and the milk solids not fat were found to be less. The stand of the petitioner was that the milk which is a liquid should be stirred and made homogeneous and that the milk was not made homogeneous before taking the sample. The contention of the complainant is that it was made homogeneous before the same was taken and that it was so stated by PW3 Dr. R.K. Sharma, as mentioned above. 6. In the case of Hans Raj v. State of Haryana, 2000(1) RCR(Criminal) 743, it has been held that presence of much higher percentage of milk fat content in the milk and little deficiency in milk solids not fat content will suggest that there was either improper sampling by the Food Inspector or imperfect analysis of the sample but not that there had been addition of water to the milk. 7. As per the case of the prosecution, the milk was carried in three drums by the petitioner. 7. As per the case of the prosecution, the milk was carried in three drums by the petitioner. Stirring such a huge quantity by way of measuring vessel of one litre will not make the milk homogeneous. It should have been stirred with the clean rod or stick. The fact that the milk fats are found to be more suggest that the stirring of the milk was not proper. In view of the above, on this point only, that the milk was not stirred properly before taking the sample, the revision petition can be allowed. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to consider other contentions raised by the petitioner in the revision petition. 8. As a result, this petition is allowed and the conviction of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Fine, if any paid, is ordered to be refunded. Revision allowed.