Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109737 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4334 of 2015 Revisionist :- Bansraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Satish Chandra Singh,Sharad Chandra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Satish Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the records. 3. The trial court records have been received which have also been perused along with records of the present revision. 4. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against judgment and order dated 19.07.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar by which the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced under Section 7(1) /16(A) /1 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for one year rigorous imprisonment & fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months additional imprisonment against which a Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2014 (Bansraj Vs. State) has been preferred which has been dismissed vide judgement and order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge / Special Judge (S.C./S.T. P..A. Act), Siddharth Nagar and the order of the trial court has been affirmed. 5. The facts of the case are that the on 04.09.1992 at about 8:30 am Food Inspector Ranjit Singh saw the revisionist carrying milk for sale on which he stopped him and purchased milk and sent it to Public Analyst as per rules. The Public Analyst through his report dated 14.10.1992 opined that the milk fat therein is 32% and the milk solid non fat is 6% and as such in the sample the milk fat is deficient by around 9% and the milk solid non fat is deficient by around 29%. Sanction was obtained from the C.M.O. concerned and a notice under Section 13(2) is alleged to have sent to the revisionist. A complaint was filed against the revisionist for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 6. In the trial the complainant Ranjit Singh, Food Inspector was initially examined under Section 244 Cr.P.C. as P.W.-1 and Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Food Clerk was examined as P.W.-2. 7. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case in full. 8. The trial court thus convicted the revisionist as aforesaid against which an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed and hence the present revision has been filed. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has raised solitary argument before this Court that in so far as the alleged purchased material being milk is concerned, the Public Analyst did not find any other extraneous matter in it for making it unfit for human consumption. It is submitted that the milk fat and the milk solid non fat was found to be deficient by the Public Analyst on the basis of which the same was considered to be adulterated and prosecution was launched. It is submitted that milk as collected was cow milk. It is submitted that the complainant Food Inspector has nowhere in his testimony stated that while collecting the said cow milk from the revisionist he had homogenized the said material and then collected its sample. It is submitted that in the event of a sample not being homogenized the contents of milk fat and milk solid non fat would not be consistent throughout. It is submitted that thus the report of the Food Analyst would not be trustworthy in so far as the material is collected. It is further submitted that the prosecution thus would be dented, if there was no credible evidence of the milk being homogenized and then sample of it being taken. It is submitted that since the same is lacking in the present matter, the present revision is a fit revision, in which benefit of doubt should be extended to the revisionist and the impugned judgement and orders be set aside. 10. Learned counsel for the State further could not dispute the fact that there is nothing on record to show that the milk was first homogenized and then sample was drawn from it which was then sent to the public analyst for its testing. 11. It is not an uncommon fact that the milk unless homogenized will have different consistencies in the storage can. Since there is nothing on record to show that the milk was homogenized prior to its sample being drawn which was sent for testing and found deficient of milk fat and milk solid non fat only and was not found to be adulterated with any other extraneous material, it is a fit case, in which benefit of doubt needs to be extended to the revisionist. 12. In view of the discussions as above, this Court extends the benefit of doubt to the revisionist. The revision is allowed. The impugned judgement and orders are set aside. 13. The revisionist is in jail. The revisionist be released forthwith, unless wanted in any other case. 14. Office is directed to transmit the copy of this judgement to the trial court forthwith for its compliance and necessary action. Order Date :- 10.7.2025/AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad