JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J.:— The applicant, Mohib Ali, was convicted in a summary triel, by a Cantonment Magistrate of “selling brown sugar without a lie ace” and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30 or in default to undergo six days rigorous imprisonment The case has been reported by the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur. The Cantonment Magistrate in his judgment states that it was hie Court, which prosecuted the accused, the Commissariat having declined to prosecute, The learned Sessions Judge points out that this being so, the Magistrate ought, having regard to the provisions of sections 190 and 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to have informed the accused that he was entitled to have his case tried by another Court and that he did not do so. The view of the Judge appears to me correct. But apart from that the conviction in my opinion cannot be sustained. The Cantonment Magistrate considers that the case ft Is within section 167 of the Cantonment Code. In my opinion it does not. The only clause of that section which could be held to be applicable is clause (j), but in my opinion the expression “articles of food which are of a perishable nature” is not intended to include such a substance as brown sugar. 2. For this reason I quash the conviction and sentence. If the fine has been paid it must be refunded.