Judgment 1. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.In the present case the petitioner has been convicted u/s. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Short point which has been called upon for determination by this Court is that if in the laddoos sold by the petitioner, it has been found that they are prepared with palm oil, whether the same constituted offence u/s. 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act or not. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that until and unless, an opinion comes that the laddoos prepared with the palm oil are unsafe for human consumption, no offence is found to be committed. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has stated that in the present case, offence has fallen under the provision of sec. 7 because the offence of misbranding will be punishable u/s. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and it has stated to the Food Inspector that they are prepared by Vanaspati oil and not by palm oil. It is difficult to rely upon the bald assertion of the witnesses in the Court because at the time when the samples were taken then had the accused disclosed that the laddoos are made by Vanaspati oil, then there ought to be averment to this effect in the complaint. Furthermore, Court have insisted that where there is no question put to the retailer at the time of purchase as to which oil has been used, nothing should be construed against the accused. To draw an analogy a Food Inspector can always says that in a shop of sweet maker goods are prepared by Desi Ghee. Before one appear in the witness box to state that the preparation at the shop is made by Desi Ghee or by Vanaspati Ghee before that there ought to be averment to this effect, in a complaint or memo drawn at spot. Since, in the present case, it was only palm oil, it cannot be said to be mis-branded until or unless. Food Inspector can say that a notice to this effect was issued to the shop-keeper. On this aspect, evidence is discrepant. The observations made above cannot be cited as precedent because in the present case, evidence is lacking, furthermore there is no mention on the purchase slip. 4. In the present case, occurrence pertains to August 1986. A period of 22 years has since been passed. On this aspect, evidence is discrepant. The observations made above cannot be cited as precedent because in the present case, evidence is lacking, furthermore there is no mention on the purchase slip. 4. In the present case, occurrence pertains to August 1986. A period of 22 years has since been passed. I cannot accept the contention of the learned State Counsel that this case be remanded back to the Trial Court because the right of speedy trial is also vested in the accused. 5. Therefore, I accept the revision petition. It is necessary to state facts. It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.08.1986 at 11.30 a.m. Moti Ram Sharma, Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. T.R. Girdhar. Local Health Authority, Kurukshetra and Sat Parkash visited the shop of the accused which is situated near Birla Mandir Chowk, Thanesar. The accused was found in possession of 15 kilograms laddoos prepared with Vanaspati Sagar kept in a tray. One and a half kilograms laddoos were purchased by the Food Inspector. The learned Trial Court relied upon the testimony of PW1-Moti Ram Sharma-Food Inspector and PW2- Mr. T.R. Girdhar, Local Health Authority, Kurukshetra and believing their oral assertion in Court that the laddoos were made in the vegetable edible oil mark Vanaspati Sagar. Since, it is not disputed that before the statement of witnesses in Court, in no document, or in complaint it was mentioned; as laddoos were prepared in which oil ? Benefit is being granted to the accused. 6. In view of the above discussion and the facts that the witnesses are discrepant and they have made an improvement, the present petition is accepted. The accused-petitioner is acquitted of the charges.