JUDGMENT The accused/applicant is aggrieved by the judgment rendered in appeal by the Sessions Court in affirmance of his conviction and sentence passed by the JMFC, Ujjain, u/s 7/16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act'). The offence in question was allegedly committed on 25.3.1980 i.e. after issuance of the notification No. 3366/XVII-MED-IV dated 11.10.1977 issued by the State Government u/s 16A of the Act empowering the Chief Judicial Magistrates/ Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrates at the Headquarters of all revenue Districts and Senior Most Judicial Magistrates of First Class at the Headquarters of all Tahsils in the State to try the offences under the Act. In the present case, the trial was held by the JMFC, Ujjain, a District Headquarter not empowered in terms of 16A. This Court in Sonalal v. State of M.P. and another., ( 1972 JLJ 1031 ) dealing with a similar provisions of section 12A (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has held : "Section 12A (2) prescribes the only manner in which and the only Court by which an offence relating to the contravention of a special order can be tried. The sub-section impliedly prohibits trial in a different manner and by different Court. When an offence under clause 3 of the M.P. Food Grain Dealers Licensing Order, 1965, was tried by a Magistrate not specially empowered in this behalf the trial was invalid and illegal." 4. In Ashok Kumar v. State of M.P. [1987 (2) FAC 269], this Court in a similar fact situation held : "It must consequently be held that the learned trial Judge who held the trial, acted without jurisdiction. The trial was, therefore, vitiated. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that the impugned conviction and sentence are illegal." Following the ratio in the two cases, above, this Court again in Anandilal v. State of M. P. [ 1995 (II) MPWN 96 ] held that the trial was vitiated because of incompetence of the trial Magistrate. In the instant cases also, as already pointed out, the trial was held in a manner contrary to the mandate of section 16A and by a Magistrate not specially empowered in terms of that section. The trial in each case is therefore, vitiated and the inevitable result is that the petitioner/accused of each case is entitled to be acquitted. In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The trial in each case is therefore, vitiated and the inevitable result is that the petitioner/accused of each case is entitled to be acquitted. In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded against the applicant is set aside and he is acquitted. The amount of fine, if recovered, be refunded to the applicant.