B S D NAGARAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-accused filed this Revision petition under Secs. 397 and 401 cr. P. C. , challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the III Additional chief Judicial Magistrate at Mysore in C. C. No. 79/1988 for the offence punishable under Sec. 16 (i) of PFA Act and the said order of conviction has been affirmed by the I Additional district and Sessions Judge at Mysore in Crl. A. 115 /1992, dismissing the appeal.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has come up with this Criminal revision Petition mainly on the ground that the Court below has committed a grave error in placing total reliance and absolute faith on the sole evidence of P. W. 1 the Health and food Inspector who is naturally an interested person and whose sole aim and object is to succeed in the prosecution. Instead of drawing adverse inference for not examining any one of the two Mahazar witnesses alleged to have been present, the Court below has come to a wrong conclusion that P. W. 1 is not an interested witness and there is difference of opinion offered in the report of the Public analyst and Central Food Laboratory, Pune. The Court below without extending the benefit of doubt, by believing the report at Ex. P-14 has wrongly come to the conclusion in convicting the petitioner. The evidence of P. W. 1 fully contradicts with regard to the obtaining of cash bill and receipt for the alleged purchase of butter and the Court below failed to notice the report of the public Analyst, Bangalore and Ex. P7 was sent beyond the time limit prescribed under Sub. Rule 3 of Rule 7 of PFA Rules. There is enormous delay in sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory, Pune. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) HEARD the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Geetha Devi for respondent and learned High Court Government Pleader for the Respondent-State.