ORDER : 1. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 4.12.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Tonk in regular Criminal Appeal No.6/2003 whereby he upheld the judgment dated 31.3.1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk in regular Criminal Case No.197/1990 whereby learned trial court convicted the accused petitioner for offence u/s 7/16(1)(A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”) and sentenced him to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. 2. I have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. 3. Learned trial court has conducted the trial as if it is a warrant case. On the contrary, section 16A of the Act specifically provides that in such matters, procedure of summary trial as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be adopted. The provision is as under : “16A. Power of court to try cases summarily. - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974), all offences under sub-section (1) of section 16 shall be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code, shall, as far as may be, apply to such trial : Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year : Provided further that when at the commencement of, or in the course of, a summary trial under this section it appears to the magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate shall after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by the said Code.” 4. On perusal of the complete file of the trial court, nowhere the court has given any opinion and finding that in the instant matter it is necessary to follow the procedure of warrant trial instead of summary trial. In the result, the whole trial conducted in the instant matter is vitiated. In the instant matter, Chief Medical and Health Officer, Shri K.G.Mathur is stated to be the person who forwarded the report of public analyst by registered post to the petitioner u/s 13(2) and who is also stated to be the authorised person u/s 20 of the Act to give consent for prosecution, has not been examined by prosecution. Though Food Inspector - Ramswaroop Sharma (PW-2) has stated that he is acquainted with the signatures of Shri K.G. Mathur, the Chief Medical & Health Officer and he has identified his signatures on the forwarding letter (Ex.P-13) by which he has forwarded the report of Public Analyst (Ex.P-11). Similarly, he has also exhibited order of prosecution sanction (Ex.P-12) signed by CM & HO Shri K.G. Mathur. But, merely on the basis of exhibition of these documents, the same cannot be construed as duly proved Both these provisions u/s 13(2) and section 20 are mandatory. But prosecution has failed to prove that both these provisions have been duly complied with prior to prosecuting the petitioner. 5. In the result, the criminal revision succeeds. The finding returned by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Tonk cannot be sustained. The petition is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted from the charge u/s 7/16 of the Act. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds stand cancelled.