M.Murtaza Hussain, J. - (1.) GAYA Prasad petitioner was convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by a Magistrate of the 1st class at Etawah. He was sen tenced to undergo R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to undergo R. I. for a further period of six months. He went up in appeal before the Sessions Judge, Etawah, who maintained petitioner's conviction though reduced the sentence of impri sonment from one year's R. I. to six months' R. I. and the sentence of fine from Rs. l.000/- to Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of that reduced amount of fine he has been ordered to undergo three months' R. I. The peti tioner has now come up with this re vision.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that at about 11 A. M. on 17-5-1972 the Food Inspector concerned found the petitioner exposing milk for sale is Lakhna Bazar within the circle of police station Bakhewar in the district of Etawah. Sample of the milk was purchased. It was sent for analysis to public Analyst who found it adulterated. A complaint was then filed against the petitioner. He denied the prosecution case in its en tirety. Both the courts below have held that the petitioner was exposing milk for sale at the alleged time and place and its sample duly obtained by the Food Inspector was found adulte rated. The point of law urged in this court is that on prosecution's own show ing the milk which the petitioner was exposing for sale was a mixture of cow, buffalo and goat milk and it was indi cated by the petitioner, which sample was obtained, that those three varieties of milk were in the ratio of 1 : 1 : 1. It has been urged that on that account the Public Analyst ought to have ap plied the standard prescribed for cow's milk while analysing the sample in question and if so judged the milk. which the petitioner was exposing for sale, was not adulterated. It his also been pointed out that the Analyst opined that milk to be adulterated by applying the standard prescribed for buffalo milk. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find force in peti tioner's contention. It is prosecution's own case that the petitioner had indi cated while selling sample to the Food Inspector, that it was a mixture of cow, buffalo and goat milk and the three varieties of milk were in equal quality. It is not a case where it was not dis closed that what varieties of milk the mixture, which the accused was exposing for sale contained. It has been laid down by this court in Sahab Singh v. State, (1) that where no standard has been fixed under the rules for a mixture of milk and it was indicated that the mixture contained cow and buffalo milk and standard prescribed for cow milk should be applied for analysing the mixture of milk. In the present case the mixture contained cow, buffalo and goat milk in equal proportion. In view of the decision referred to above the Public Analyst had to apply the Standard prescribed for cow's milk. His report can, therefore, not prove that the milk, which the petitioner was exposing for sale, was adulterated. The conviction of the petitioner ordered by the courts below is, therefore, not justified.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY this revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner ordered by the trial court and maintained by the lower appellate court are set aside. The petitioner is on bail. He need not sur render. His bail bonds are discharged. Fine, if already paid by the petitioner, shall stand refunded to him.;