R. S. Sodhi ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 31-5-1999 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing criminal Appeal No. 34/92 arising out of the judgment and order of the metropolitan Magistrate holding the petitioner guilty under Section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration act for violation of Section 2 (ia) (a) (m) of the Act and vide separate order sentencing him to undergo RI for one year with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case as noted by the teamed Additional Sessions Judge are that: "on 22-12-1989 the sample of pasteurised full cream milk without any indication, which was stored for sale, Anil kumar, at M/s Kwality Milk Products, karol Bagh, Delhi. The Food Inspector took the sample from a sealed polythene pack of one litre after homogenization by pouring and repouring in aluminium pot. The sample was divided into three equal parts and kept in clean and dry bottles after adding 20; drops of formalins in each bottle. Thereafter 2-3 bottles were separately packed and sealed. The price for the sample was paid to the appellant and the punchnama was prepared at the spot. Documents prepared at the spot were signed by the appellant. Notice was given to the appellant. Food Inspector Arun Kumar was joined in the proceedings conducted at the spot and he had signed the documents prepared at the spot. One counterpart of the sample was analysed by the public analyst and according to his report, Ex. PW-l/b, the solids not fat were found to be 8. 55% as against the minimum specified limit of 9% and the sample was opined to be not confirming to the standard prescribed. The appellant was the vendor and Proprietor/licencee. Om Prakash was also made an accused in this case. The appellant moved application under Section 13 (2) of P. F. A. Act and the second counter part of the sample was got analysed from the Director cfl, who vide his report Ex. PX found the sample not conforming to the standard laid down for buffalo milk as the milk fat contents were 5. 2% instead of minimum specified limit of 6%. PX found the sample not conforming to the standard laid down for buffalo milk as the milk fat contents were 5. 2% instead of minimum specified limit of 6%. The appellant and his co-accused had not pleaded guilty to the notice framed against them and during the trial. Dr. P. K. Jaiswal, PW-2, Food Inspeetor, VPS chaudhary, PW-2, R. N. Shanna, PW-3 and Food Inspector Arun Kumar, PW-4, were examined and after recording the statement of accused, evidence of two defence witnesses were recorded by learned trial court. After the trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. " ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the public analysis, the fat content were noted as 6. 1 per cent while SNF was 8. 55 per cent, but upon a further analysis by Central Food Laboratory (CFL) it was found that the fat contents were 5. 2 per cent while SNF had gone upto 9. 9 per cent. He submits that applying the standard of buffalo milk, the total count of fat and SNF ought to be 15 per cent. For this purpose he relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Administrator of the city of Nagpur v. Laxman and another, 1995 suppl. (1) SCC 247. He, therefore, claims that this is not a case where the petitioner could be held guilty of the offence as has been done by the trial court and the first appellate court. Learned counsel for the state, after going through the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, submits that the stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. ( 4 ) IN this view of the matter, relying upon the judgment of the Supeme Court above mentioned, I set aside the judgment dated 31-5-1999, acquit the petitioner of all charges and allow Criminal Rev. No. 191 of 1999. The petitioner is on bail his bail bond and the suretics shall stand discharged.