Remand on mere technicalities should be avoided, and the accused's awareness of the nature of the adulteration is crucial in determining the prejudice in his defense.

( 1 ) THE present revision has been filed by the revisionist shashi Kant Gupta against the impugned judgment and order dated 17. 4. 1985 passed by First Additional Sessions judge, Jhansi in Shashi Kant Gupta v. State of U. P. , under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, P. S. Garotha, district Jhansi. By the impugned judgment and order the lower Appellate court had set aside the trial Courts order and had remanded the case back for rehearing.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix were that the sample of 450 grams of whole turmeric was taken by PW. 1, O S. Sengar, Food inspector from the shop of the revisionist on 29 9 1981 at 3. 15 P M. after giving notice in form-6 (Ex Ka-1 ). The receipt of the purchase (Ex Ka-2), inspection note (Ex. Ka-3) and Form No. 7 (Code slip) (Ex Ka-4) were prepared by him and purchase receipt was got signed by the revisionist at the time of taking of sample. He sealed the sample into three philes, the code slip was pasted and one sample was dispatched for analysis to the Public analyst. Other two samples were deposited with the local health authority/chief medical Officer, Jhansi. The public analysist vide its report dated 9. 11. 1981, ex. Ka-5 opined that the sample was adulterated as it contained more than five per cent of the insect damages matter. After receipt of the public analyst report sanction for prosecution was applied for and was granted by Local Health Authority/ c. M. O. on 20. 2. 1982. Pursuant it the complaint was filed in the Court of Judicial magistrate, 1st Jhansi by the Food Inspector on 19. 3. 1982 against the revisionist. Notice under Section 13 (2) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was sent to the revisionist accused on 25. 3. 1982 by food Clerk and the same was received by him. Charge was framed, against accused, on 4. 9. 1982 under Section 7/16 prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which was denied by him and hence he was tried.

( 3 ) IN the trial, the prosecution examined food Inspector, O. S. Sengar as p. W 1 and food clerk, J. B. Singh as P. W. 2. No otner witness was produced by the prosecution.

( 4 ) THE plea of the accused was that of denied and his defence was that he had gone to the School and while returning from there the Food Inspector, on the pretext of renewal of license, got his signatures on papers and no sample was taken from his possession The accused revisionist examined Han Kishan D. W. 1 in his defence

( 5 ) THE trial Court believed the prosecution case and finding the accused guilty of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act, convicted him for six months r. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months further R. I. vide his judgment and order dated 30 7. 1984. The conviction was challenged in appeal and the lower Appellate Court, First Additional sessions Judge, Jhansi vide his impugned judgment dated, 17 4. 1985 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of trial Magistrate and directed the case to be reheard and fixed 17. 5. 1985 for the presence of the parties. Challenge has been thrown to the appellate Courts order in the instant revision.

( 6 ) I have heard Sri V. Shandilya in support of the revision and learned a. G. A. in opposition.

( 7 ) THE Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the order passed by the lower appellate Court is illegal, perverse and there was not reason for it to remand the case back for rehearing. He submitted that the grounds on which the rehearing was ordered are not tenable in law and therefore the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. He submitted that incomplete examination of accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , which has not caused any prejudice to him, cant be a ground for remand, as the lower Appellate Court itself was competent to cure the defect. He further contended that the remand of the case for consideration of various rulings, which were cited before trial Court and which had not been considere