JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---Two persons who were father and son respectively were accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal case No. 937 of 1976 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Parhbani on a complaint filed by the Food Inspector of Parbhani against them complaining of the commission of an offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On 26th of February, 1975, said the prosecution, the Food Inspector collected samples from the shop owned by accused No. 2 of Soda and Orange. The statutory sale is said to have been made by accused No. 1 who is the petitioner in this petition. Samples were sent to the Public Analyst whose report, received in due course, showed that the samples of both Soda and Orange contained bacteria and that they were unfit for human consumption. The Public Analysts report in respect of orange also showed that it contained saccharin beyond permissible limit. In other words, the sample of orange was adulterated in more than one sense. This complaint filed by the Food Inspector referred to the adulteration by bacterial contamination alone and did not complain of the adulteration of orange by virtue of containing more than the permitted amount of saccharin. 2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was thus led to frame a charge against both the accused only on the basis that the two samples contained bacterial contamination and therefore, were unfit for human consumption. The learned Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 11th of August, 1977 acquitted accused No. 2 but convicted accused No. 1 of the offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for three months was also directed. While so convicting and sentencing accused No. 1, the learned trial Magistrate accepted the prosecution case regarding the character of the two samples being unfit for human consumption. 3. Accused No. 1 preferred an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 1977, which was heard and disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge of Parbhani by his judgment and order dated 5th of December, 1977. 3. Accused No. 1 preferred an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 1977, which was heard and disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge of Parbhani by his judgment and order dated 5th of December, 1977. He held that accused No. 1 was not guilty of selling orange which was unfit for human consumption because there was no evidence in that regard but looking to the report of the Public Analyst wherein he found that the sample contained more than the permissible amount of saccharin he proceeded to convict accused No. 1 on that ground. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Magistrate were thus confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge though on different grounds. 4. I have already mentioned above that the charge framed against the accused did not contain the allegation that they were guilty of selling orange which contained saccharin beyond permissible limit. 5. Accused No. 1 has approached this Court in its revisional jurisdiction by this petition which is argued before me by the learned Advocate Mr. Bandi vadekar. Mr. Bandivadekar had no difficulty in showing the illegality of the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge . If there was no charge at all that the sample of orange contained more than the permitted quantity of saccharin, it is difficult to see how the learned Sessions Judge could persuade himself to record a conviction under that charge. In a prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act a person cannot be convicted without framing a proper charge because there are specific rights given to the accused in a trial under this Act of requiring a sample to be sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. The defence in such a case is bound to be prejudiced, if the charge is on one ground and the conviction is to be recorded on another ground. I have no hesitation in upholding the contention of Mr. Bandivadekar that the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate in the instant case are wholly illegal and are liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, this petition must succeed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Parbhani in Criminal Case No. 937 of 1976 and thereafter confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Parbhani in Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 1977 are set aside. 6. In the result, this petition must succeed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Parbhani in Criminal Case No. 937 of 1976 and thereafter confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Parbhani in Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 1977 are set aside. The petitioner (original accused No. 1) stands acquitted of the offences with which he was charged. The bail bond of the petitioner stands cancelled. Fine, if paid, to be refunded to the petitioner. -----