Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in the revision petition was convicted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under S.4 and 5 of the Kerala Baby Food (Declaration of Stocks and Maintenance of Accounts) Order of 1966 read with S.3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955, but was released under the Probation of Offenders Act. On appeal the Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction. In revision it is urged that the conviction itself cannot stand. 2. At the time of admission of the revision petition I issued notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why his release under the Probation of Offenders Act should not be set aside and he be not sentenced in case his conviction was found to be correct; and that is the calendar revision. The counsel of the petitioner draws my attention to my own decision in Udayasi, Metro Cycle Importing Co. v. State of Kerala (1969 KLT. 69), where I have dealt with a similar provision in the Kerala Cycle Tyres and Tubes (Declaration of Stocks and Maintenance of Accounts) Order of 1966. I have held in that decision that S.4 of the Cycle Tyres and Tubes Order was beyond the competence of the delegated powers of the State Government and therefore invalid. S.4 of the Baby Food Order is similar in terms; and the authorisation given by the Central Government is also in similar terms. On the same reasoning of the reported decision, S.4 of the Baby Food Order has also to be held to be beyond the competence of the delegated powers of the State Government and thus invalid. The charge against the petitioner under S.4 is therefore quashed and the petitioner is acquitted of that charge. 3. What remains is the charge under S.5 of the same Order in that the petitioner failed to keep correct accounts as contemplated by that section. On this question the Sub Divisional Magistrate has held that the closing balance of Glaxo on 30th March 1967 was in fact 62 tins, but what was shown in the accounts was only 38 tins, so that the accounts were incorrect. The Sessions Judge has considered this question in Para.7 of her judgment; and she has held that there was no mistake in that entry and that entry was correct. But, she has pointed out some other irregularities in the accounts of 1st April and 3rd April 1967. The Sessions Judge has considered this question in Para.7 of her judgment; and she has held that there was no mistake in that entry and that entry was correct. But, she has pointed out some other irregularities in the accounts of 1st April and 3rd April 1967. And it was on this basis that the Sessions Judge has confirmed the conviction of the petitioner. 4. There was no mention of these irregularities in the charge, nor was the petitioner asked to explain them when he was questioned under S.342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section 2 of S.5 of the Baby Food Order lays down that every dealer shall complete his accounts for each day on the day to which they relate unless prevented by reasonable cause, the burden of proving which shall be upon him. This indicates that the dealer should be told what the irregularities are, so that he might give his explanation and also discharge the onus cast on him. Evidently, this should be done before the trial commences, so that the accused gets an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses to bring out necessary facts to discharge his onus, which means that the irregularities should be indicated in the charge itself so as to enable him to mould his defence. In this case, the irregularities, as I have already stated, are not mentioned in the charge, nor do they find place even in the examination of the petitioner under S.342 of the Code. Therefore, the charge under S.5 cannot also be upheld. 5. Now that I have held that the conviction itself cannot stand, the revision petition has to be allowed and the calendar revision has to be dismissed; and I do so. The conviction of the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted. Allowed.