ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 31-5-1999 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 34/92 arising out of the judgment and order of the Metropolitan Magistrate holding the petitioner guilty under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for violation of Section 2(ia)(a)(m) of the Act and vide separate order sentencing him to undergo RI for one year with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months.

(2.) The facts of the case as noted by the teamed Additional Sessions Judge are that:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the public analysis, the fat content were noted as 6.1 per cent while SNF was 8.55 per cent, but upon a further analysis by Central Food Laboratory (CFL) it was found that the fat contents were 5.2 per cent while SNF had gone upto 9.9 per cent. He submits that applying the standard of buffalo milk, the total count of fat and SNF ought to be 15 per cent. For this purpose he relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Administrator of the City of Nagpur v. Laxman and another, 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 247. He, therefore, claims that this is not a case where the petitioner could be held guilty of the offence as has been done by the trial court and the first appellate court. Learned counsel for the State, after going through the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, submits that the stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner is correct.