JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - The Food Inspector, Notified Area Council, Bhubaneswar filed a prosecution report on 19-6.1964 in the Court of the Sub. Divisional Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, u/s 16(1)(a) and (g)(ii) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite party (accused) alleging that the latter was selling adulterated Chhena and that he was in the habit of selling such Chhena for which he was fined Rs. 160- in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, u/s 16(1)(80) of the Act in case No. C(II)69263 on 27-3-1964. On 20-9-1964 the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the accused for appearance on 21-11-1964. On that day he passed the following order. The accused is present. The particulars of the accusation explained to him to which he pleads guilty. The Public Analyst's report discloses that the seized cheese contained 13-5% against the prescribed milk fat of 15%. In such circumstances even though the accused committed an offence of similar nature previously he is convicted u/s 16(1)(81) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15 and in default Section I. five days. The revision has been filed against this order that the learned Magistrate should have followed the procedure of warrant cases in the trial on the accused and that sentence of imprisonment' should have been passed u/s 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. 2. Section 7(i) lays down- No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute- (i) any adulterated food; .... Section 16(1)(a) prescribes-(relevant portions quoted) 16. Penalties: (1) If any person (a) whether by himself or by any person on his behalf...sells any article of food hi contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder, .... he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may b liable under the provisions of Section 61 be punishable.... Penalties: (1) If any person (a) whether by himself or by any person on his behalf...sells any article of food hi contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder, .... he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may b liable under the provisions of Section 61 be punishable.... (i) for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both; (ii) for the second offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine; Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than two thousand rupees; 3. The order of the learned Magistrate shows that he was aware of the commission of a previous offence by the accused from the prosecution report itself. The sentence prescribed for a second offence is imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine. The minimum punishment has been prescribed in the proviso unless special and adequate reasons to the contrary is mentioned. Section 4(1)(w), Code of Criminal Procedure defines "warrant-case" as meaning a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment' for a term exceeding one year. Thus if a second offence is committed u/s 16(1)(a) read with Section 7(i), the warrant procedure for trial must be followed. The section also prescribes compulsory imprisonment if the charge is established. 4. The learned Magistrate committed an illegality in following summons procedure in the facts and circumstances of this case. No authority is necessary in support of this view. Narayanan Nambudiri Vs. Kurichithanam Educational Society, may, however, be referred to wherein the same view has been taken. 5. I would accordingly quash the order dated 21-11-1964, set aside the conviction and direct that the Magistrate should proceed with the trial of the case under warrant procedure in accordance with law. The revision is allowed. The rule for enhancement of sentence is discharged. Final Result : Allowed