IN RE: RAMALINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition by the accused. The revision petitioner was called absent and no representation on his behalf was made by any counsel. It appears that the revision petitioner and his counsel have left the matter to, the court, presumably thinking that they do not have any strong point to press.

(2.) AS per S. 433, Crl.P.C., no party has any right to be heard either personally or by pleader before any court exercising its power of revision. In this case, opportunity was given to the party. He did not appear either personally or by pleader. The judgments and records were therefore perused and the Public Prosecutor was heard.

(3.) BEFORE the trial Court, the Food Inspector examined himself and filed ten exhibits. The accused did not adduce any evidence nor filed any exhibit. The trial court upon perusing the evidence adduced by the prosecution and after hearing the arguments of both sides found accused -1 not guilty and acquitted him and held accused -2 guilty under S.7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with S. .2(ia)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The trial court after questioning accused -2 about the sentence and finding that he was a first offender sentenced him to three months of rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 500.