KESHUBHAI RANABHAI TUKADIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision Application has been preferred by the petitioner - original accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code" for short), challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order rendered by the learned Sessions Court, Porbandar, in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1999, on 30th November, 2007, whereby the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the said Appeal, upheld the judgment and order recording the conviction of the petitioner, rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Porbandar, in Criminal Case No.13786 of 1995, on 15.5.1999. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, by judgment and order rendered on 15.5.1999, recorded the conviction of the petitioner, who was original accused therein, for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (1) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (as the "Act" for short) and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent No.2-Food Inspector, who was original complainant before the Trial Court, visited the dairy of the petitioner- accused on 02.8.1995 at about 11.45 a.m and collected sample of buffalo milk. The same was forwarded to the Public Analyst, Vadodara. The opinion of the Public Analyst was that the class of milk has not been mentioned. The sample does not conform the standard of buffalo milk laid down in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and that milk fat and milk solid not fat are less than the minimum prescribed limits and, thus, it was reported that the same was adulterated.

(3.) After obtaining necessary sanction for the purpose of launching prosecution, the respondent No.2 - Food Inspector, filed a Criminal Complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Porbandar, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 13786 of 1995. Since the petitioner-accused did not plead guilty, the prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. After considering the evidence on record and the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Porbandar, recorded the conviction of the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7(1) and 16 of the Act and awarded the sentence as mentioned here-in-above in this judgment.