JUDGMENT The petitioner was convicted for offence under S. 16 (1) (a) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Nagar Nigam) Ujjain in Cri. Case No. 1190/80 by order dated 21.2.87. The said order of conviction and sentence was affirmed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge Ujjain by his order dated 18.6.90 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 39/87. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred this revision application. Prosecution story in short is that on 29.5.80, the Food Inspector, during the course of checking found the petitioner carrying 10 litres of milk kept in a container for the purpose of sale. The Food Inspector purchased 660 ml. of milk for analysis. The milk so purchased was divided into three parts and according to the prosecution after following the requirement of law the sample was sent to public analyst for his report, which was found to be adulterated by the public analyst. The two Courts below have concurrently held the petitioner guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Shri Jain appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Judicial Magistrate First Class who tried the offence, was not competent to try the offence. According to the learned counsel S. 16 A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 inter alia provides that offence under S. 16 (1) of the Act shall be tried in summary way and summary trial has to be held by a Magistrate expressly empowered in its behalf by the State Government. He has stated that the State Government, by its notification dated 11.10.77 in exercise of power under S. 16 (A) of the Act empowered the Chief Judicial Magistrate at head quarters of all revenue Districts in the State and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates at head quarters of all revenue districts in the State to try the offences. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on two decisions of this Court; one in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of M.P. [1987 (II) F.A.C. 269] and another in the case of Sonelal v. State ( 1972 JLJ 1031 ). In support of his submission, he placed reliance on two decisions of this Court; one in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of M.P. [1987 (II) F.A.C. 269] and another in the case of Sonelal v. State ( 1972 JLJ 1031 ). In Ashok Kumar's case (supra) this Court has held the trial of the accused for offence under S. 16 (1) of the Act by a Judicial Magistrate First Class not empowered by the State Govt. being without jurisdiction. It is apt to refer to observation of this Court in the aforesaid case. "In this view of the matter, the learned J.M.F.C. who held the trial, acted without jurisdiction. The trial was, therefore, vitiated. The inevitc1ble conclusion, therefore, is that the impugned conviction and sentence are illegal." In Sonelal's case (supra) although this Court was deciding a case in which provisions of Essential Commodities Act came into consideration, but the words used in the Essential Commodities Act were in para materia as that of S. 16 (4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Following the ratio of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State (supra) as also of Sonelal's (supra) I am of the view that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded and fit to be accepted. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and the Municipal Corporation submitted that as the trial has been vitiated because of incompetence of the learned Magistrate, the matter may be remanded back for fresh trial by a competent Court. I am afraid, this submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is devoid of any substance. The occurrence has taken place as back as on 29.5.80 and it will not be proper exercise of discretion to direct for retrial of the petitioner after a lapse of near about 15 years. I reject this prayer of the respondents. Having held that the trial of the petitioner has been vitiated because of incompetence of the learned trial Magistrate, I have no option than to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Magistrate as also affirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is hereby set aside, and the petitioner is acquitted. His bail and personal bonds shall stand discharged.