SHANTILAL Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 01/03/2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded in R.C.C. No. 566/1998, thereby the learned Magistrate convicted the applicant for the offence punishable u/s 7 (i) read with 2(ia), (a), 2 (ia) (m) and Section 7 (v) read with Rule 50 punishable u/s 16 (1) (a) (ii) and 16 (1) (a) (I) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules thereunder and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ [Rupees Five Thousand only], in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months on all counts, together with the Judgment and Order dated 06/08/2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Appeal No. 19/2000, by which the learned lower appellate Court dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Judgment of conviction, the applicant herein prefers the present Criminal Revision Application.

(2.) Heard Mr. S.S.Bora, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.A.Ambad, the learned A.P.P. for the respondent - State in extenso.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned orders are erroneous and can not stand to the scrutiny of law. According to him, the order of conviction can not stand on the touchstone of law in view of the report of Public Analyst [Exh. 31] and the Consent order [Exh. 39]. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. submitted that the Courts below have correctly assessed the prosecution case and have rightly convicted the applicant.