1. - Accused respondent Jamal was tried for offence under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nasirabad. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate on appreciation of evidence and on hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the accused respondent beyond doubt and accordingly, acquitted the accused-respondent of the offence charged with.

2. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record.

3. As per the prosecution case, the accused respondent was found selling adulterated milk. PW1 Inderjeet Singh, Food Inspector took samples of cow milk from the accused respondent and after observing necessary formalities, sent the sample of cow milk for analysis to the Public Health Laboratory. The Analyst examined the milk and submitted report Ex. P7. This report shows that there was 4.3% fat content and 7.64% solid non-fat in the sample of cow milk. The Analyst of Public Health Laboratory opined that "this sample of cow's milk is adulterated as it does not