As far as both the above referred authorities are concerned, there is no dispute as to the law laid down in Paramjit Singh's case (supra) but with due respect, it is worth mentioning that when the complainant could not prove the guilt of the respondents to the hilt beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, therefore, the finding, if any, recorded by the trial court regarding non mentioning by the Public Analyst, in his report, that the milk sample taken from the Gobind Milk Dairy was unfit for human consumption relates to insignificant aspect of the case. Therefore, this authority is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The facts of the case of Benny Thomas's (supra) are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case, because, in that case, four bottles of Sarbath (synthetic syrups) were kept in shop for sale, whereas in the instant case, as per own deposition of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses, the sample of the milk was taken from the Collection Milk Centre, from where no milk used to be sold and therefore, this authority also does not render any assistance in favour of the applicant-State
