( 1 ) IN this appeal the order of acquittal passed by the trial court has been set aside by the High court. The trial court came to a finding that samples for the alleged adulterated oil have not been drawn in a clean container and for such finding the contradiction in the depositions of the four prosecutionwitnesses examined were referred to. The High court has noted such contradictions but it appears that the High court has proceeded on the footing that the accused being the seller should have protested if the container in which the samples were drawn were not clean and, therefore, ignored the contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses for the prosecution about the nature of bottles in which samples had been drawn.

( 2 ) IT appears to us that if there are contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses for which there was a reason for the trial court to entertain doubt about proper drawing of the samples and such view cannot be held to be perverse or inconsistent with the depositions, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. Therefore, there was no good reason for the High court to interfere with the order of acquittal by ignoring the contradictions in the deposi