JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. The only point urged in this appeal is that the High Court ought to have held that the provisions of Section 16-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the ‘Act’) providing for summary trial are mandatory. While In the instant case the trial Court adopted the warrant case procedure.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that no prejudice has been shown by the appellant and in any event there is no absolute bar on the Court to adopting warrant procedure in a given case.

3. Section 16-A of the Act reads as follows:

“16-A. 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 Sec.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 Sec. 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 pa