MOOL CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A. K. Mishra, learned counsel for Revisionist, learned A.G.A. for State-respondent and perused the record.

(2.) This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by judgments and orders dated 04.01.1989 and 24.11.1990. The Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offiences) Mathura vide judgment and order dated 04.01.1989 convicted and sentenced Revisionist to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 16 (1) (a) (I) read with Section 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1954"). Thereagainst Revisionist has preferred Criminal Appeal No.7 of 1989 before Court of Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Court") and Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal vide judgment and order dated 24.11.1990 has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by Trial Court.

(3.) It is contended that firstly prosecution has not proved that Revisionist was selling milk and secondly, there was no independent witness while collecting sample, hence, requirement of Section 10(7) of Act, 1954 was not complied and thirdly, Revisionist was below age of 18 years on the date of collecting sample, hence, it was incumbent upon Magistrate to comply with requirements of Section 20 AA of Act, 1954.