VISHAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against order dated 20111998 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge. Durg in Criminal Appeal No.83/ 1998 confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.05 1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Durg in Criminal Case No. 1653 of 1995, by which, holding the applicant guilty for commission of offence under Section 7(i)(ii) of the Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 16(1)(A) (D(ll)oftheAct.

(2.) Case of the prosecution is that on 10.01.1995. the Food Inspector along with his team in the Flying Squad arrived at the scene of occurrence where the applicant was found selling milk. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant is engaged in the business of selling milk and comes from Nagpura and sells milk to residents of Padmanabhpur area of Durg. The applicant was found in possession oi 12 liters of mixed milk of cow and buffalo, 7 liters of milk in one cane and 5 liters of milk in another cane. A notice in FormVI was given to the applicant vide Ex. P2. R.R. Shrivastava, Food Inspector,

(3.) On a complaint being filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg on 25.05.1995, plea of the accused was recorded on the charges of alleged commission of offence under Section 7(1) of the Act and the applicant abjured guilt. In order to prove the guilt of the applicant, the prosecution examined the concerned Food Inspector R.R. Shrivastava. P.W.I and Anil Kumar Chawda P.W.2. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.05.1998, the trial Court found the accusedapplicant guilty for the alleged commission of offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for one month. Against the aforesaid judgment, the applicant preferred an appeal before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, which was dismissed, confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.