ASHOKKUMAR GURUMUKHDAS MANANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has preferred the present Revision Application challenging the order dated 12

(2.) TH December, 1996 passed by THe learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Surat in P.F.A. Case No.31 of 1992, which has been confirmed by THe learned Presiding Officer and Fast Track Court, Surat by THe Judgment and Order dated 29

(3.) MR.Panchal, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that the orders passed by the Courts below are contrary to law and evidence on the record. Both the Courts below have not considered the mandatory provisions of the law and have passed the orders. He has contended that the present applicant has wrongly convicted by the Courts below. He has contended that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that there is no violation of Section 2(9)(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 32 of the Rules made thereunder. The allegation made against the applicant of misbranded article of food is totally false and frivolous. He has further contended that the panch witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, only on the basis of evidence of complainant, the applicant cannot be convicted. He has further contended that the complaint is filed after long delay and thus, the complaint suffers from delay and latches. He, therefore, contended that looking looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, present Revision Application may kindly be allowed quashing and setting aside the orders passed by both the Courts below and thereby the applicant may be acquitted.