Gyanendra Kumar, J. - (1.) The application in revision has to be allowed. The applicant is a ghee dealer at Rishikesh. On 30-10-1961, PW 1 U.S. Sharma, Food Inspector of the Municipal Board, took a sample of ghee from him for analysis. In his report dated 30-10-l961, the Public Analyst, U.P. reported that the Ghee in question was adulterated on account of the following factors:- 1. Butyrorefractometer reading was in excess by 0.3. 2. Reichert value was deficient by 3.3. 3. Free fatty acid content exceeded the prescribed maximum limits by 3%. 4. Moisture (water content) exceeded the maximum limit by 0.3%.
(2.) The difference in the first two items was considered to be so negligent that it was ignored by the Sessions Judge. Regarding the excess of free fatty acids, it was observed by the Sessions Judge at page 8 as follows:- "In the present case also there was delay in chemical analysis. The bottle in which sample was taken was not covered with black paper to avoid any action of light on the sample. 0.3% of moisture is permissible in pure ghee. In the circumstances, it can not be said (on account of the presence of the free fatty acids upto 9.3%) that the sample was of adulterated ghee".
(3.) From the above quotation, it is amply clear that the excess of free fatty acid contents in the instant case was not considered by the Sessions Judge to be large enough as to amount to adulteration of ghee. However, at page 10 of his judgment, he observed:- "It is quite evident that the sample in question is adulterated. Either free fatty acids to the extent of 9.3 per cent were present in the sample from before or the percentage increased on account of hydrolytic process. In the first case, the ghee is adulterated because the free fatty acid contents exceeded the prescribed maximum limit of 3.0 percent. In the second case it is adulterated because there was no question of increase of water on account of Chemical deterioration. The water content exceeded the prescribed maximum limit of 0.3 per cent.";