A SHAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C.C. 148 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trivandrum is the revision petitioner. The conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act for short) and confirmed by the Sessions Judge are under challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition.

(2.) The second respondent Food Inspector, Corporation of Trivandrum inspected the provision store conducted by the revision petitioner in T.C. 1/2278 near Medical College Junction at 10 a.m. on 3-2-1989 and purchased 750 gms. of 'Chamba rice' from the revision petitioner for the purpose of analysis after complying with the procedural formalities. The food article purchased was divided into three parts in accordance with the Rules and one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. On analysis the food article was found coated with Kavi (red Ochre). Ext. P9 report proved by PW4, the Analyst shows that sample was adulterated. On receipt of the report the complaint was filed alleging that the revision petitioner committed the offence punishable under Sections 2h, (j), 7 read with 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The learned Magistrate after trial found that the revision petitioner sold the food article to PW1 the Food Inspector and the same was adulterated. The revision petitioner was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. The appeal filed by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Judge was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Those concurrent findings are under challenge in this revision petition.

(3.) This Criminal Revision Petiton came up for hearing on 4-10-2001. On that day the revision petitioner and his counsel were absent. Hence the Criminal Revision Petition was posted for orders after hearing the Public Prosecutor and perusing the records. Thereafter the revision petitioner filed Crl. M.P. 5368 of 2001 to review that order. That Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was allowed and the Criminal Revision Petition was posted for hearing and is disposed of after hearing both sides.