AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for State.

(2.) This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by the judgments and orders dated 25.01.1989 and 06.12.1990. The First Munsif Magistrate, Farrukhabad vide order dated 25.01.1989 passed in Criminal Case No. 1884 of 1987 has convicted revisionist under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced them to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-. Thereagainst, revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1989 and Appellate Court while dismissing appeal, confirmed order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court. Being aggrieved the revisionist preferred present revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for revisionist contended that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and, therefore, conviction is illegal. He tried to take this Court to the judgments and made his endeavor to show that the view taken by Courts below in appreciating the evidence is not correct.