JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. D.K. Modi for the petitioner and Ld. A.P.P. Mr. K.P. Raval for the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 though duly served has remained absent. 2. Petitioner herein is original accused who has challenged the judgment and order dated 15th April, 2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2000 whereby, the Sessions Court has confirmed the order of conviction of the petitioner by the J.M.F.C., Dhandhuka in Criminal Case No. 203/87, dtd. 21st October, 2002. Such proceedings were initiated by the respondent No. 2 herein being a Food Inspector u/s. 3 (1), 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is to the effect that, on 25th February, 1987, at about 02 : 00 p.m., the respondent No. 2 - complainant has received an intimation that, the petitioner herein is adulterating the Ground Nut Oil with Castor oil and thereby committing the offence u/s. 2, 1 (a) (a) of the Act and therefore, he has collected the sample from the shop of the petitioner and sent it for analysis to the Public Analyst appointed for the purpose. Necessary procedure of preparing panchnama etc. was carried out and paper work was done and considering the report of Public Analyst, the complaint was filed, wherein the petitioner was convicted as referred herein-above. When such conviction was confirmed, the petitioner is challenging it on the following amongst several grounds in this revision petition. "(1) There is difference in serial number of the sample and serial number in the report by Public Analyst and therefore, by all means, there is reason to believe that the sample collected from the petitioner's shop was mishandled and the report of some other sample is forwarded to the complainant with the name of the present petitioners - accused and therefore, there cannot be conviction. It is evident from the record that serial number disclosed by the Public Analyst in its report at Exhibit 74 is shown as serial No. 2/FDA/AHD/HQ-03/17/87, whereas certificate of Central Food Laboratory has confirmed the number as serial No. 2/FDA/AHD/HQ-03/19/87. It is evident from the record that serial number disclosed by the Public Analyst in its report at Exhibit 74 is shown as serial No. 2/FDA/AHD/HQ-03/17/87, whereas certificate of Central Food Laboratory has confirmed the number as serial No. 2/FDA/AHD/HQ-03/19/87. (2) The complainant has failed to inquire about the manufacturer of the oil and to collect the sample from the manufacturer also so as to confirm that whether adulteration, if any found, in the sample is at the hand of the dealer or at the hand of the manufacturer. (3) Officer who has issued the report as Public Analyst was not authorized for the purpose. (4) Sanction for prosecution was not properly accorded. (5) There is contravention of rule 4(1) and 4(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration. In support of such submission, the petitioner is relying upon the decision reported in State of Gujarat v. Ramanbhai Durlabhai Patel, 1997 (2) GLH 457 . (6) The complainant has not stirred the ground nut oil from which sample is taken and thereby, when source is not made homogeneous before taking the sample, there is possibility of error in such analytical report." 3. I have perused available record so also the report of the Public Analyst which confirms that, though there is material irregularity and illegality committed by both the courts below because though there is a glaring difference in the report and sample number and though there is no explanation from Public Analyst, both the courts below have ignored such fact and convicted the petitioner. When there is a difference in such numbering, it is bounden duty of the complainant to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and to make it certain that, either there is no difference in number on sample and the report or that it is merely a typographical and/or clerical error and in that case, they have to produce the second report and documentary evidence regarding its sample to show that the report was interchanged. In absence of clarity on record, irrespective of any other evidence, benefit of doubt certainly needs to be extended to the petitioner-accused. 4. In absence of clarity on record, irrespective of any other evidence, benefit of doubt certainly needs to be extended to the petitioner-accused. 4. However, even on merits, the facts are quite clear that, practically, there is no evidence regarding adulteration, moreover, when the ingredients of the sample is confirming the standard of such ingredients approved under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and thereby, when all the ingredients were within the prescribed limit, it cannot be said that, edible ground nut oil from which sample is collected was adulterated in any manner whatsoever. Whereas, both the court below have purely relied upon one sentence and result of the Public Analyst Report which opines that, sample shows presence of castor oil in violation of note below item A.17.23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and therefore, the sample is treated as adulterated. Even for sake of argument, if we believe that the sample is so adulterated, the fact remains that, pursuant to difference in number on report of Public Analyst and the sample number and thereby, when number disclosed in report does not tally with the number of the sample, prima-facie, it is to be believed that, this report is not pertaining to the sample which is collected from the petitioner and thereby, petitioner cannot be convicted only because of such opinion. 5. However, even if we examine the provision of item A.17.23 of the Food Adulteration Act which provides for the standards of the ingredients permissible for such ground nut oil, it transpires that, practically, there is different item number in the rules in as much as compilation of rules shows that, the standards of edible oil are provided under item No. A.17, wherein item No. A.17.03 is for the ground nut oil, whereas A.17.23 is for rice bran oil. Therefore, practically, now it is evident on record that the Public Analyst has not bothered to prepare and file proper report though so far as result regarding contents are in confirmation of the provision regarding ground nut oil in item A.17.03. Therefore, practically, now it is evident on record that the Public Analyst has not bothered to prepare and file proper report though so far as result regarding contents are in confirmation of the provision regarding ground nut oil in item A.17.03. The perusal of analytical report categorically confirms that, all the ingredients and substance in the sample are within prescribed limit of such substance under the rule and in addition to six standard tests, the analyst has performed as many as 15 tests and all such tests are confirming that, there is no other material beyond the permitted percentage of such material so also its percentage and even different additional tests of hydroeyanic acid, argemone oil, mineral oil, oil soluble coal tar colour are negative. However, the test for castor oil was showing positive report but in that case, its percentage was not verified and examined by the Public Analyst, however if we read the provision of item A.17.03 under the rules, it becomes clear that there is nothing in the rule which confirms that presence of traces of castor oil would make it inedible and thereby adulterated in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, it is now added with effect from 21st December, 2005 that, if the oil is obtained by the method of solvent extraction, it shall be supplied for human consumption only after refining and shall confirm the standards laid down under article (A.17.15), which provides standards for refined vegetable oil, wherein except for the negative test for argemone oil other standards are similar to other edible oil. 6. In view of such fact, when there is no specific disclosure in any of the item regarding negative test for castor oil also and more particularly, when percentage of the castor oil is not checked at all or examined by the petitioner, it amounts to irregularity or illegality by both the courts below in confirming the conviction and therefore, I do not see anything or substance to confirm the conviction. There is substance in other grounds also, however when from the report of Public Analyst, it becomes clear that, the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt for confirming his acquittal all other grounds are not discussed in detail. Therefore, there is a reason to interfere with impugned judgment. There is substance in other grounds also, however when from the report of Public Analyst, it becomes clear that, the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt for confirming his acquittal all other grounds are not discussed in detail. Therefore, there is a reason to interfere with impugned judgment. There is no option but to allow the revision application by quashing and setting aside the impugned order and thereby to acquit the petitioner from all the charges leveled against him. 7. Therefore, revision is allowed, thereby impugned judgment and order dated 15th April, 2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2000 whereby, the Sessions Court has confirmed the order of conviction of the petitioner by the J.M.F.C., Dhandhuka in Criminal Case No. 203/87, dtd. 21st October, 2002 are hereby quashed and set aside, resulting into acquittal of the petitioner from the charges leveled against him. Bail bond shall stand canceled. R & P be sent back to the trial Court.