DORI LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) This criminal revision has been filed against judgment and order dated 13.6.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Bulandshahar in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 1993, by which the conviction and sentence passed by Additional C.J.M., Bulandshahar by order dated 31.3.1993 has been upheld.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that there was no compliance of provisions of Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the revisionist has not been served with any notice. It has also been submitted that the report of Public Analyst was received after a period of five months which has adversely prejudiced the rights of revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that learned court below has failed to consider the evidence on record and the revisionist is a labour class person.