KISHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 22.9.84 passed by Sessions Judge, Mathura dismissing the appeal preferred against the judg ment and order dated 7.1.84 passed by Judicial Magistrate I (Econmic offences), Mathura convicting the revisionist under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to six months rigorous imprisonment and to fine of Rs. 1000.00.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the identity of the accused is not established and the solitary evidence of the Food Inspector was not sufficient to prove that the revisionist was involved in the crime. He also contended that the evidence of the PW--2 suffers from self-contradiction. He contended that the identification of the accused for the first time in the Court without any prior test identification could not be accepted.

(3.) After having gone through the record judgments passed by the Courts below and submission of learned Counsel I find that the finding recorded after proper appraisal of the evidence cannot be interfered in this revision. In my opinion, the accused was rightly convicted. The reasoning given by the Courts below need no repetition.