Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J. 1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.05.1987 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1985 dismissing appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.02.1985 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Deoria in Case No. 1080 of 1984 holding accused guilty under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, convicting and sentencing the revisionist to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- coupled with defaulting clause. 2. Brief facts are that the revisionist Ram Preet was buffalo milk vendor of Kasba Rudrapur, District Deoria. Raghubansh Pande was the Food Inspector of Rudrapur area. on 30.12.1982 at 11:00 A.M., the revisionist was exposing for sale buffalo milk in Rudrapur Kasba. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity with the revisionist and demanded licence for selling buffalo milk. The revisionist did not have any licence, so, he was unable to produce it. Thus, the Food Inspector served notice in form no. 6 on the revisionist and purchased 660 ml. buffalo milk for Rs. 1.65/- in presence of witnesses Baiju and Mohd. Faruq and obtained receipt of payment of price of the buffalo milk. The collected buffalo milk was divided into three parts. The Food Inspector mixed formalin in each phials as preservative. The milk was sealed in three clean phials on which necessary endorsements were made and thumb impression of the revisionist was procured. The Food Inspector prepared six copies of memorandum, sent sample along with the copy of the memorandum and specimen seal to the Public Analyst for analysis according to the rule and deposited remaining two phials of the sample in the local health office. On 15.02.1985, the report of the Public Analyst was received and it was found that buffalo milk was adulterated. Non fatty solids were deficient by 26%. The Food Inspector requested the Chief Medical Officer, Deoria for launching prosecution against the revisionist. After obtaining necessary sanction from the Chief Medical Officer, a complaint petition was lodged against the revisionist. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the complaint petition, the revisionist claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined Food Inspector Raghubansh Pande as PW-1. 5. The statement of the revisionist was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the allegations levelled against him. 6. Learned lower court after perusing all the evidences on record convicted the accused as aforesaid. 7. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the complaint petition, the revisionist claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined Food Inspector Raghubansh Pande as PW-1. 5. The statement of the revisionist was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the allegations levelled against him. 6. Learned lower court after perusing all the evidences on record convicted the accused as aforesaid. 7. Feeling aggrieved, Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1985 was filed, which was dismissed on 07.05.1987. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has come up in this revision. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 10. The revisional power and scope of revision has been laid down by the Apex Court In AIR 2002 Supreme Court 107 ( Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another) in which it has been held that while exercising revisional powers, the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. 11. It is well settled principle of law that the revisional jurisdiction is not as wide as the appellate jurisdiction and under the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is required to exercise its powers when it is proved that there is material irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the order. 12. As a broad proposition, the interference of revisional court may be justified in cases ( a) where the decision is grossly erroneous; ( b) where there is no compliance with the provisions of law; ( c) where the judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or perversely; ( d) where the court below has misread or mis-appreciated the evidence on record; ( e) where the material evidence of parties has been considered and; ( f) where the find of fact affecting the decision is not based on evidence on record. 13. 13. Thus, it is clear that revisional jurisdiction is normally to be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on the point of law resulting in miscarriage of justice as has been laid down in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2229 in the case of Jagannath Chaudhary Vs. Ramayan Singh. 14. Considering the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, it is clear that the evidence recorded by the trial court and appreciated again by the appellate court is not required to be re-appreciated again by this court. 15. The trial court and appellate court have given finding in detailed appreciating the evidence and have found no substance in the arguments of the revisionist. 16. I do not think it proper to disturb the findings of fact recorded by the two courts below. 17. In the present case, it has been argued on behalf of the revisionist that deficiency in non fatty solids by limited percentage could not be said that the milk was adulterated. In support, counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 1979 page 107 Dhani Ram Vs. State, in which it has been held that:- "the prescribed standard for goat's milk is 3.5% of fat. The Public Analyst on the other hand found 6.8% fat contents which was almost the double of the prescribed standard. It was no doubt deficient in non-fatty solids by about 13%. By no stretch of imagination it could be said that the milk which was deficient: considerably in non fatty solids was adulterated. The factors which was involved in the case of Qadam Singh v. State, Criminal Revision No. 2042 of 1972 decided by Allahabad High Court on 6-1-1978 are equally well involved in the instant case and the sample of milk collected by the Food Inspector cannot under the circumstances be held to be adulterated. The revisionist conviction is liable to be said aside." 18. Perusal of the report of the Analyst shows that the Public Analyst found the milk fat to be 6% but the non fatty solids were found to be deficient by 26%. 19. The revisionist conviction is liable to be said aside." 18. Perusal of the report of the Analyst shows that the Public Analyst found the milk fat to be 6% but the non fatty solids were found to be deficient by 26%. 19. In the above Rule submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist, the milk was goat milk and the facts of the case are distinguishable from that of the case in hand and it cannot be said that the deficiency of non fatty solids to the tune of 26% would not make the milk to be adulterated. 20. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also argued that the copy of report of the Analyst was not supplied to the revisionist, but this argument has no legs to stand because receipt of copy of Public Analyst report is Exhibit Ka-9 and copy of letter of the office of Chief Medical Officer is Exhibit Ka-10. 21. Thus, upon careful consideration of materials available on record and in view of the discussion made above, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned orders of the courts below and the revisionist has utterly failed to show that the courts below have failed to consider any material evidence on record or have misread or mis-appreciated the evidence on record. No perversity in the orders passed by the courts below, have been pointed, out due to which this revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly the revision is dismissed. 23. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Office is directed to transmit the lower court record back to the courts below along with copy of this order for taking necessary action.