JAMNA DASS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been heard by me in the absence of the petitioner and his counsel; but since I have had the advantage of the arguments of Shri V.D. Misra, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and I have also formed the opinion that the revision has to be accepted, I have not considered it necessary to adjourn the case for the presence of the petitioner and/or his counsel.

(2.) The petitioner was tried before a Magistrate 1st Class Delhi on a complaint filed against him by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under section read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for having been found selling adulterated Khoa of which a sample was drawn from his premises by a Food Inspector. It was further alleged that he was a previous convict having already been convicted and sentenced for the same offence on two prior occasions. Learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty but before pronouncing sentence on him directed the prosecution to lead evidence with regard to his previous conviction under section 511 Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) Against the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 4.11.1965 a revision petition was filed by the petitioner under section 435 Code Criminal Procedure wherein the only point urged on his behalf was that there was delay in the institution of the complaint.