JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant-State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 7.10.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Regular Case No. 617/2003, whereby the trial Court acquitted the accused-respondent of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, "the Act" hereinafter). 2. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as also the counsel for the respondent. Perused the judgment and order impugned, as also the record of the trial Court. 3. In the instant case, vide Ex.P/12, the report of the Public Analyst, the cow milk seized from the accused-respondent, on being chemically analysed, found 4.7% fat and 8.04% non-solid fat, whereas, as per the Schedule-B attached to the Act, it was required to be 8.5% and, thus, there was a very minor variation. 4. Relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Administrator of the City of Nagpur v. Laxman & Anr., 1994 Supreme Court on Food Adulteration Cases page 8 , the trial Court acquitted the respondent by giving the benefit of doubt. In the similar circumstances, in Administrator of City of Nagpur v. Laxman & Anr. . (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "The whole question is whether the sample of cow milk is adulterated so as to attract the penal provision of the Act. Learned Magistrate who acquitted the respondent who was a small milk vendor noted that the fat percentage is 6% as against 3.5% which is more than the standard prescribed for cow milk. The only shortfall was that S.N.F. was 7.3% where it ought to have been 8.5%. Further, it noted that the total solids are 13.13% which is again more than the satisfying standard of cow milk. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that courts below have erred in acquitting them giving the benefit of doubt to the respondents." 5. In the instant case, the cow milk, on being analysed by the Public Analyst was found containing fat of 4.7 whereas, as per the Standard annexed to Schedule-B appended to the Act, for cow milk, it is 3.5% and thus, the fact was much more than as required by Schedule-B appended to the act. The only shortfall was with respect to Solid Non-Fat which was 8.04% as against 8.5%. The only shortfall was with respect to Solid Non-Fat which was 8.04% as against 8.5%. When generally totalled, it will go more than the required standard. In the circumstances, therefore, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused-respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant Leave to Appeal to this Court. 6. The Leave to Appeal to this Court is refused and the application for Leave to Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******