JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, whereby he has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 3954. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Municipal Magistrate for the said offence and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of seven months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for another period of two months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28-10-1968 at about 6.45 a m. the Food Inspector Shambhoo Narayan P.W. 1 checked the petitioner, while he was carrying milk for sale in a container on cycle. He purchased from the petitioner 660 ml. milk after paying its price and divided it into three phials and after adding the requisite quantity of formalin all the phials were duly packed and sealed. The sample was sent to Public Analyst, who examined the sample and gave his report vide Ex. P/7 as follows:- Fat contents. 5.% Solid non fats 7.07% Cane sugar and starch Nil 3. According to the prescribed standard the solid non fats should have been 8.5% and Fat contents should be 3 5%. As the solid non-fat quantity was some what less than the prescribed one, in the opinion of the Public Analyst, the sample as adulterated by reason of its containing 17% added water. The prosecution also alleged that the petitioner was a previous convict for the offence under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Provention of Food Adulteration Act and therefore the evidence was also led to that effect through the statement of PW. 1 Food Inspector, and the certified copy of the judgement of the previous case Ex. P/12 was also produced. The petitioner was examined under Section 342 Cr. P. C. (old) to that effect. Other witnesses were also produced by the prosecution. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was no doubt taking the milk for sale which was adulterated. He further held that the accused had also been previously convicted for the same offence. Therefore, he convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above. 4. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was no doubt taking the milk for sale which was adulterated. He further held that the accused had also been previously convicted for the same offence. Therefore, he convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that the learned Magistrate was not right to have allowed the evidence of previous conviction at the earlier stage i. e. in the beginning by the statement of PW. 1 Food inspector which tried to prove previous conviction by producing the certified copy of the judgement Ex. P/12. The learned Magistrate was also not justified in putting up the question of previous conviction under Section 342 Cr. P. C. (old). It was first necessary for the learned Magistrate to have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of this particular offence and after that conclusion he should have allowed the evidence of the previous conviction to be recorded and on that evidence the accused should have been examined further under Section 342 Cr. P. C. As this illegality has been prejudiced and the conviction of the petitioner is illegal. He has relied upon the decision of this Court in Budharam v. State, 1968 Cr.L.J. page 862 wherein the learned Judge of this Court has held that Section 255A/ clearly prohibits the Magistrate from taking any evidence in respect of the alleged previous conviction anterior to the recording of finding of guilt in respect of the charge under trial, when the accused had pleaded not guilty to the charge. Section 342 Cr. P. C. inter alia provides that an accused has to be examined for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against him. Now by force of Section 255 A the prosecution is completely precluded from adducing any evidence regarding the previous conviction at that stage when defence evidence has not even begun. The legislature has designedly guarded against the production of evidence regarding previous convictions till a certain stage with a view to ensuing that the mind of the presiding officer does not get affected in any manner. This is therefore not an empty formality or technicality which can be allowed to be disregarded. A conviction in such circumstances is illegal. 5. The legislature has designedly guarded against the production of evidence regarding previous convictions till a certain stage with a view to ensuing that the mind of the presiding officer does not get affected in any manner. This is therefore not an empty formality or technicality which can be allowed to be disregarded. A conviction in such circumstances is illegal. 5. The learned public prosecutor in view of this ruling concedes to the legal position. He has however submitted that the case may be sent back with the order for retrial. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case there is -no case for remanding the case for retrial. The fat contents are 5-6% i. e. excess by 25% then the required standard. The solid non fat contents are slightly less and therefore, if it is to be taken that the sample is adulterated, it is merely in its technical sense as the solid non fats required to be 8*56% more over, this is an incident of 28. 10. 1968 i. e. about 9 years old and the petitioner has already undergone so much protracted criminal proceeding for such a long period. In Sudha Ram v. State, 1968 Cr. L.J. Page 862 the alleged incident was of the year 1965 and the revision was decided on October 21, 1967 even then it was held that the accused had not only to face trial but had gone in appeal to the court of sessions and came in revision before this court. Therefore, looking to the nature of the case the Hon'ble Judge was not inclined to order retrial. In the present case the incident relates to the years 1968 and the petitioner undergone the same formality of litigation. Looking to the facts and circumstances of present case, it will not be just and proper to order retrial after such a long time. 7. In the result, I accept the revision petition and set aside the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated 30.8.1972 and hereby acquit the accused. The accused is said to be on bail. Consequently, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The Tine, if deposited, shall be refunded to the petitioner. *******