JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - The Petitioner assails the conviction awarded and sentence imposed by the learned Sub-Divisional, Judicial Magistrate, Boudh, upheld in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani. Accusations leading to the trial of the Petitioner in short, are that on 27-9-1985 he had exhibited for sale several food articles for human consumption; the Food Inspector, Phulbani suspecting them to be adulterated, after complying with the requirements prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act') and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short' the Rules') collected sample of Til oil and Atta, parts of each of the samples were sent to the Public Analyst, Orissa who opined that the samples of food articles did not conform to the requisite standards and were adulterated. After obtaining written consent from the Chief District Medical Officer, Phulbani, prosecution was hunched. 2. Two witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case, while the Petitioner who took the plea that he was not a vendor of food articles, examined one witness in support of his stand. On evaluation of the evidence and materials on record, he was found guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default rigorous Imprisonment for ten days more. The matter was carried in appeal, but the learned appellate Judge declined to interfere. 3. Though several grounds of challenge were agitated in this case; I find that the prosecution suffers from an inherent infirmity which renders trial otiose. Charge in this case was framed on 30-9-1986 and it was recorded as follows ; You owned a grocery shop at Madhapur and were selling and exposed for sale for human consumption Til oil and Atta which were adulterated as opined by Public Analyst, Bhubaneswar violating Rule 44-H of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 and thereby committed an offence u/s 16(1)(a)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 7(l) of the Act. (Underlining by me). Charge as framed shows complete non-application of mind. If reference was to Rule 44-H, the same could not have been under any Act. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is of the year 1954 and not of 19554 The learned Magistrate should have been careful while framing charges. (Underlining by me). Charge as framed shows complete non-application of mind. If reference was to Rule 44-H, the same could not have been under any Act. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is of the year 1954 and not of 19554 The learned Magistrate should have been careful while framing charges. Added to this minor irregularity, I find that while recording the statement of the, Petitioner u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'), questions were not put to him in the right perspective. The manner of recording examination of accused also leaves much to be desired. No answer has been recorded in respect of question No. 2. Extent of adulteration alleged was not put to him. It was only put to the accused that samples sent to the Public Analyst, Orissa disclosed that samples were adulterated. Even the Analyst's reports were not specifically indicated to him. Such improper recording of evidence has been held to be prejudicial to an accused. The Punjab and Haryana High Court speaking through M.M. Punchhi, ) (as his Lordship then was) directed acquittal on that scope alone. (See 1987 (1) F.A.C. 150: Amarnath v. State of Haryana). The Kerala High Court in a similar case held that accused should have been asked about various items of evidence appearing against him. The entire prosecution evidence should not be encapsulated into few questions without relevant details being indicated. If relevant items of evidence are not indicated to the accused, the Court should not put reliance on the evidence of the witnesses, which have not been highlighted or put to the accused (See 1988 (2) F.A.C. 94: Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality v. Ratnaswamy and Ors.) A similar view was also expressed by the Supreme Court in AIR 1954 S.C. 468 (Zwinglee Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh), and Hate Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. State of Madhya Bharat. In Ratnaswamy's case (supra) Kerala High Court thought it proper to send back the case for proper questioning of the accused and for disposal in accordance with law. As held by the Supreme Court in S. Harnam Singh Vs. State of Madhya Bharat. In Ratnaswamy's case (supra) Kerala High Court thought it proper to send back the case for proper questioning of the accused and for disposal in accordance with law. As held by the Supreme Court in S. Harnam Singh Vs. The State (Delhi Admn.) Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (corresponding to Section 313 of the Code) casts a duty on the Court to put in any enquiry or trial, questions to the, accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any of the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him; it follows as necessary corollary therefrom that each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused is required to be put to him specifically, distinctly and separately; failure to do so amounts to a serious irregularity vitiating trial, if it is shown prejudice to the accused; if the irregularity does not, in fact occasion a failure of justice, it is curable u/s 537 of the Code, 1898 (Corresponding to Section 405 of the Code). The object of Section 313 is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused. If a point in the evidence is important against the accused, and the conviction is intended to be based upon it, it is right and proper that the accused should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it. Where no specific question has been put by the trial Court on an, inculpatory material in the prosecution evidence, it would vitiate the trial, if it has caused miscarriage of justice' or prejudice. In the instant case, even the answer to question No. 2. has not been recorded. The vital question was whether the article exposed was intended for human consumption, and the answer being very vital, non-recording thereof was prejudicial to the Petitioner. Non-indication of the inculpatory material in its relevant facets, also added to vulnerability of the prosecution case. In 1986(3) F.A.C. 135 (State of Assam v. Dhanpati), there was perfunctory examination of the accused persons u/s 313 of the Code. The matter was remanded back to the trial Court, and the trial Court was directed to re-try the case from the State at which prosecution was closed. 4. In 1986(3) F.A.C. 135 (State of Assam v. Dhanpati), there was perfunctory examination of the accused persons u/s 313 of the Code. The matter was remanded back to the trial Court, and the trial Court was directed to re-try the case from the State at which prosecution was closed. 4. On considering the facts of the present case, I feel that it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to the trial Court to the stage at which prosecution was closed. The trial Court shall examine the Petitioner again u/s 313 of the Code and dispose of the case afresh. The order of conviction and sentence are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for disposal ill accordance with law. The revision application is disposed of.