JUDGMENT J.P. Chaturvedi, J. - This is a revision against a judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, dismissing an appeal of the applicant Karuna Shanker and affirming his conviction under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence of 6 months R.I. and line of Rs. 1000/-. 2. The prosecution case was that on 30th November, 1977, at 10.00 A.M. the Food Inspector, R.B.L. Sagar, found the applicant Karuna Shanker carrying about 40-50 litres of milk on a cycle near Chandpur School. After giving him a notice in form No. 6, the Food Inspector purchased 660 mililitres of milk for analysis by the Public Analyst and paid Rs. 1.32 p. He obtained a receipt for the price paid and divided the sample into three parts and added 18 drops of formalin to each part of the sample and sealed the same. He sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst for analysis, who reported that the milk was adulterated, 3. After obtaining the usual permission of the Chief Medical Officer, the Food Inspector made a complaint against the applicant. The applicant was, accordingly, tried for the offence under Sections 7/16 of the Act and was convicted and sentenced as already mentioned. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has assailed the judgment of the lower appellate court on the ground that the lower appellate court was not right in dismissing his appeal summarily, inasmuch as he did not plead guilty. The statement of the applicant before the learned Magistrate was read out to me. It was not legible, at all, and it was difficult to make out if the applicant pleaded guilty or not. As for example, in answer to the question that notice in form No. 6 had been given and the price of the sample milk had been paid to him, the applicant appears to have denied it. The trial court, however, observed that he admitted the same. In the same way regarding the sanction by the Local Health Authority and the sample milk being adulterated, the applicant did not admit it in unequivocal terms. He appears to have kept quiet. In these circumstances, the provisions of Section 375, Cr. P.C. were not applicable. 5. The trial court, however, observed that he admitted the same. In the same way regarding the sanction by the Local Health Authority and the sample milk being adulterated, the applicant did not admit it in unequivocal terms. He appears to have kept quiet. In these circumstances, the provisions of Section 375, Cr. P.C. were not applicable. 5. It has been pointed out that the applicant moved an application before the trial court to defer the cross-examination of the only witness, Food Inspector, as he was not prepared for the same. The learned Magistrate rejected the application and proceeded with the trial, with the result that the applicant was denied sufficient opportunity to meet the prosecution case. This was not fair, particularly when the applicant had not admitted the prosecution case unequivocally. The judgment of the lower appellate court as well as of the learned Magistrate are to be set aside. 6. The revision is, therefore, allowed and the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Sections 7/16 and sentence awarded to him thereunder are set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to retry the applicant for that offence. He will recall the Food Inspector and afford an opportunity to the applicant to cross-examine him and thereafter record the statement of the applicant and dispose of the case in accordance with law.