JUDGMENT 1. - This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Pali with a recommendation that the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pali, dated 22nd December, 1973, convicting Atma Ram accused, under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days, may be set aside and the case may be remanded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, for retrial according to law after reconstructing the case file, which is reported to have been missing. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this reference are mentioned in para No. 3 of the reference order and I need not reproduce them in detail here. Suffice it to say, that on 12-7-73, the Food Inspector, Pali, went to the shop of Atma Ram and purchased a sample of til oil, which was divided into three equal parts and each part was filled in a dry and clean bottle, which was duly corked, sealed and packed. One bottle containing the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, who, after examination, opined that it did not conform to the standard of purity prescribed *for til oil under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. Upon receipt of the result of the analysis, the Food Inspector obtained requisite sanction for prosecution of Atma Ram and, eventually, filed a complaint against him in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pali, under Section 7/16 of the Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate straightaway framed a charge against Atma Ram for the aforesaid offence. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded guilty. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate then recorded the statement of the accused under Section 342, old Cr. P.C. without hearing the complainant and without taking all such evidence, as may be produced in support of the case. Atma Ram admitted his guilt in his statement also. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate accepted the plea of guilty and convicted the accused upon it. As the sentence passed against the accused was a fine of Rs. 100/- only, the Municipal Board, Pali, filed a revision in the court of the Sessions Judge, Pali, for enhancement of the sentence under the old Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate accepted the plea of guilty and convicted the accused upon it. As the sentence passed against the accused was a fine of Rs. 100/- only, the Municipal Board, Pali, filed a revision in the court of the Sessions Judge, Pali, for enhancement of the sentence under the old Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Judge heard the revision petition and made this reference. 3. I have carefully gone through the relevant papers including the explanation submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and heard Mr. I.C. Maloo for Atma Ram and Mr. K.C. Bhandari, Public Prosecutor. No body has appeared on behalf of the Municipal Board, Pali. 4. For the reasons mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, the reference merits acceptance for the simple reason that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not follow the correct procedure laid down for trial of warrant cases instituted, otherwise, than on a police report and straightaway proceeded to try the accused, as if the case had been instituted on a police report. As stated earlier, the case was instituted by the Food Inspector, Municipal Board, Pali, on a complaint against Atma Ram accused. The Sub Divisional Magistrate had no power to forthwith charge-sheet the accused and require him to state his plea and on his admission of guilt to convict him thereupon without hearing the complainant and recording his evidence. Under sub-section (I) of Section 251, old Cr.P.C. when the accused appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in a complaint case, he ought to have proceeded to hear the complainant and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the complaint before framing a charge against the accused. Curiously enough, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate adopted an illegal procedure by framing a charge forthwith against the accused under Section 7/16 of the Act. He committed another error in recording the statement of the accused under Section 342, old Cr. P.C. without taking all the evidence referred to in Section 252, old Cr. Curiously enough, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate adopted an illegal procedure by framing a charge forthwith against the accused under Section 7/16 of the Act. He committed another error in recording the statement of the accused under Section 342, old Cr. P.C. without taking all the evidence referred to in Section 252, old Cr. P.C. If the accused had pleaded guilty to the charge, there was no necessity of recording his statement, because the examination of the accused is intended to give him an opportunity to have his say on the evidence led against him by the prosecution and when there is no evidence given by the prosecution witnesses and the accused admits his guilt, no useful purpose can be served by examination of the accused. Consequently, I agree with the Sessions Judge that there has been no trial of the accused in accordance with law and the case should be remanded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for retrial according to law. The reference is, therefore, accepted and the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pali, dated 22nd December, 1973, is set aside and the case is remanded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, for trial in accordance with law.Case remanded for retrial. *******