ORDER

Allsop, J. - This is an application in revision against a conviction u/s 4, United Provinces Prevention of Adulteration Act. The point raised against the conviction is that the summons issued to the applicant did not contain the particulars required by Section 15 of the Act. Learned Counsel maintains that the failure to give these particulars is by itself sufficient to justify the acquittal of the applicant. He has relied upon the cases in Banarsi Das Vs. Emperor, AIR 1930 All 595 , Bohra Raghubar Dayal Vs. Emperor and Gajraj Singh Vs. Emperor, AIR 1936 All 761 . I have examined the judgments delivered in these cases and I am of opinion that they do not justify the wide proposition that an irregularity in a summons issued under the Prevention of Adulteration of Food Act is in itself sufficient to justify an acquittal. The cases in Banarsi Das Vs. Emperor, AIR 1930 All 595 and Bohra Raghubar Dayal Vs. Emperor were cases under the Act, but they were both cases in which the learned Judges were of the opinion that prejudice had been caused to the person accused by the failure by Section 15 of the Act. In Banarsi Das Vs. Emperor, AIR 1930 All 595 the learned Judge said that the omi