SATYANARAYAN BISHANDAYAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Application is preferred by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 22. 2. 1999 delivered by the learned Additional City sessions Judge, Court No. 22, Ahmedabad in criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1994 confirming the judgment and order dated 18th October. 1994 delivered by the learned Metropolitan magistrate, Court No. 8, Ahmedabad in criminal Case No. 31 of 1989. A Criminal Revision Application preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 22-2-1999 delivered by the learned Additional City Sessions judge. Court No. 22, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal no. 46 of 1994 confirming the judgment and order dated 18th October. 1994 delivered hy the learned metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ahmedabad in criminal Case No. 31 of 1989.

(2.) HEARD Ms. Benazir appearing for Mr. A. S. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. L. Jani, learned APP for the respondent no. 1 State. Mr. Satyam chhaya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 [original complainant] is absent when the matter is called out.

(3.) EARLIER, when this matter was listed, submissions in part were made by Ms. Benazir. However, she had sought time to cite decisions to convince the Court that the petitioner could not have been held guilty for committing offence of selling misbranded food article or adulterated food article. I have heard Ms. Benazir today afresh. She has taken me through the complaint, judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ahmedabad and confirmed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 22, city Sessions Court, Ahmedabad.