DEVARKONDA RAMESH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner-accused filed the revision against the judgment of conviction and sentence in C. C. No. 13 of 1994 dated 24-9-1998 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Luxettipet in convicting him for an offence under Sections 7(i), 2(ia) (m) r/w. 16(1)(a)(i) PFA No. 1954 and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, suffer S.I. for 15 days, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Food Inspector on 13-5-1993 at about 4.45 p.m. along with his staff inspected the shop of the revision petitioner-accused and took samples of Mirchi powder, which was meant for sale for human consumption. The Food Inspector suspected the same to be adulterated, collected the sample of Food and sent one of the samples to the public analyst who opined that the said food article was adulterated and thereafter he lodged the complaint. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-24. The learned Magistrate after appreciating the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the offence was proved against the revision petitioner-accused. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence the revision petitioner-accused filed criminal appeal No. 109 of 1998. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence.

(3.) Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence the revision petitioner-accused filed the revision contending that the judgment of conviction and sentence is illegal and not maintainable. It was further contended that the Courts below failed to appreciate that the case against the accused was tried as a calendar case instead of conducting as a summary trial. It was further contended that no notice about the report of the public analyst was served on the accused and therefore the trial is vitiated. It was further contended that the ingredients of the offence has not been made out and hence the Courts below committed error in convicting the revision petitioner-accused.