JUDGMENT M.M. Gupta, J. -This revision has been filed by one Abdul Samim who has been convicted under section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months' and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 22-11-78 the revisionist was found selling at Pauri Bus Station by the Food Inspector B.R. Badami at about 11 a.m. the hand Boiled Sugar Confectionary lemon drops or toffees. He was a peddler selling them at the Bus Station and other places. A sample by purchase of a packet of 100 grains was taken by the Food Inspector on payment of Rs. 2.15. The sample was divided into three separate parts. It was sealed and sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst found coaltar dye portion coal tar dye present Rhodamine B. The sample was coloured with an un-permitted coaltar dye Rhodamine B. After obtaining the consent of the Chief Medical Officer a complaint was filed. Before the trial court besides the Food Inspector B.R. Badami Sri Khush Lal Singh and Abdul Wait were examined. 3. The learned Magistrate relied on the prosecution evidence and found the applicant guilty of offences under section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Accordingly he convicted and sentenced the applicant as stated above. The conviction and sentences unproved against the applicant were upheld on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. In revision before me it is contended that the applicant was greatly prejudiced by improper examination under section 313 Cr. P.C. The question that was put to the applicant regarding adulteration was as follows : "Uprokt Narauna Ki Janch Jan Vishieshak Lucknow U P. Dwara Karai Gai Aur Wah Milawat Pai Gai." It was not put to the applicant as to what was the adulteration for which he was being charged. The incriminating circumstance against the applicant was that he was found selling lemon drops which contained coaltar dye Rhodamine B but this fact has not been put to him. In such circumstances the examination under section 313 Cr. P.C. not bringing out the actual and real circumstance that was brought out in evidence against the applicant, the applicant could not be convicted of the offence under section 7/16 of the Act. 5. In such circumstances the examination under section 313 Cr. P.C. not bringing out the actual and real circumstance that was brought out in evidence against the applicant, the applicant could not be convicted of the offence under section 7/16 of the Act. 5. The revision is, therefore, allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the applicant are hereby set aside. The fine if deposited shall be refunded.