ZAHID Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shahjad Alam, Advocate holding brief of Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned counsel for revisionist and perused the record.

(2.) This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by judgment and order dated 24.02.1998 passed by Sri Bijendra Singh, IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1996, whereby it has dismissed and upheld the judgement and order dated 05.01.1996 passed by learned Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor, in Case Crime No. 1129 of 2004, convicting revisionist under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1954") and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-. Being aggrieved, revisionist preferred present revision.

(3.) It is contended that revisionist was not selling alleged spurious milk but this defence has not been proved by adducing evidence. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts which could not be shown perverse in any manner. It is not the case of revisionist that any relevant piece of evidence was ignored or any impermissible or irrelevant evidence was taking into account or there is any other perversity, illegal or otherwise, in the judgements impugned in this revision. He then contended that this is an old matter and accused-revisionist is now attained advanced age, therefore, sentence of imprisonment awarded to him be reduced to the period already undergone.