RAMJEE PRASAD vs STATE OF BIHAR

The Supreme Court held that the appellants could not be convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Food Adulteration Act as they were initially charged under Section 16(1)(a)(i), which has distinct evidentiary requirements. The Court emphasized that changing the nature of the offence prejudiced the appellants' defense, as the ingredients for conviction under the two clauses are substantially different. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the lower court's orders were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.