ROOPCHAND PATEL Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth 'CrPC'), the instant revision has been filed by applicant Roopchand Patel calling in question the impugned judgment affirming his conviction for offence under Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (henceforth 'the Act, 1954') which is punishable under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, 1954. The core facts required for judging the correctness of the impugned judgment are as under:

(2.) THE trial Magistrate, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, placing reliance on the report of the Public Analyst finding the cow -milk sold by the applicant adulterated, which is violation of Section 7(i) of the Act, 1954 punishable under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, 1954 convicted the applicant for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000.

(3.) SHRI A.N. Bhakta, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in convicting the applicant for the aforesaid offence holding that the applicant is guilty for the offence under Section 7(i) of the Act, 1954. Relying upon Section 11 of the Act, 1954, he would submit that the prosecution has failed to bring home the offence by demonstrating that before taking the sample of cow -milk from the bulk milk the said milk was thoroughly mixed the milk either by stirring it with a long handle dipper or by pouring it with one vessel or other or by shaking it gently and the prosecution has further failed to show so that the milk has no globules or bubbles when the sample was taken. Thus, the entire prosecution case has vitiated on account of non -compliance of Section 11 of the Act, 1954. Therefore, the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded deserves to be set aside.