S.S.Sodhi, J. - (1.) The challenge in revision here is to the judgment of the Sessions Judge remanding the case to the trial Court for recording the statement of the petitioner afresh under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to decide the case thereafter in accordance with law.
(2.) The facts relevant to this matter are that on Sept. 9, 1980, a sample of Rasgullas was purchased by the Food Inspector from the petitioner Ramesh Kumar, which on analysis was found to be adulterated inasmuch as un permitted orange coal tar dye had been used. It is in respect thereof that the petitioner was tried and eventually convicted for an offence under section if (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00
(3.) In appeal the finding was recorded by the Sessions Judge that the trial Magistrate had omitted to put to the petitioner the particulars of the report of the Public Analyst, when he was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and this omission had certainly caused prejudice to the petitioner in his defence. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner was, on this account, set aside and the case remanded to the trial Magistrate for afresh decision.;