ORDER P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant was convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to 1 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine he was to undergo R I for o months. 2. Aggrieved thereby he filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the lower court for trial from the stage of the charge, after re-framing the charges in the light of the observations made by him in his judgment. Aggrieved thereby the instant revision has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order, ft is not necessary to give the detailed facts in the instant case. It is clear from the order of the Sessions Judge that the charge which has been framed against the applicant is in cyclostyle form and in the relevant portion the words 'Rangeen Petha' unpermitted colour was used. Rule 28 has been written after scoring out certain portion as well as Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that the defects in this charge were fatal to the prosecution case. It was pointed out that in the charge the colour is not named Further scoring out the words at his shop' by himself is different to saying that the applicant was selling Rangeen Petha by Pheri. This completely introduces a new version of the prosecution case. It was further pointed that the offence was not under Rule 28 but under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, read with Rule 23 of the Rules. 4. The learned Sessions Judge after considering these objections taken by the applicant before him, came to the conclusion that even if the contention of prejudice caused to the applicant by a re-trial is accepted, his conviction should not be set aside altogether. The accused should be tried again after rectification of the charge. In my opinion such a view is not only unwarranted in law, but is highly unjust and unfair. Once the court comes to the conclusion that a re-framing of the charge is likely to prejudice the applicant, it is his bounden duty to acquit the accused of the charge, already framed. In my opinion such a view is not only unwarranted in law, but is highly unjust and unfair. Once the court comes to the conclusion that a re-framing of the charge is likely to prejudice the applicant, it is his bounden duty to acquit the accused of the charge, already framed. The accused should not be made to suffer the pargs of trial and re-trial again and again, because the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden which is cast upon it. In my opinion, therefore, the order of remand is wholly uncalled for and must be set aside. This application in revision is accordingly allowed and the applicant is acquitted of the offence for which he was charged. 5. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby discharged.