Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.2 of 1985 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Tellicherry. He was acquitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offence under Ss.16(1)(a)(i) read with Ss.7(i) and (iii) and 2(1-a)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He was found guilty under S.16(i)(a)(ii) for violation of R.50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Suo mote revision was taken by the Sessions Judge, Tellicherry. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the accused and directed the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass appropriate sentence against the accused after hearing him with regard to the sentence.

2. The chief contention of the revision petitioner is that the Sessions Judge was not justified in converting the acquittal into a conviction in the suo mote revision. It is contended that the conviction cannot be sustained in view of the specific provisions under S.401(3) of the. P.C.

3. By virtue of S.399 Cr.P.C. Sessions Judge is entitled to exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of S.401. S. 401(1) provides that i