SHAIK MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Ss. 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C') against the judgment dtd. 18/3/2010 in Crl.A.No.123 of 2009, on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Markapur, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Ss. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity 'the Act') vide judgment dtd. 21/8/2009 in C.C. No.158 of 2007, on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Sri V. Mallik, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of the revision argued that in Ex.P7 label, there are no signatures of the petitioner, P.W.1 and the mediator; the evidence of the P.W.1 is not trustworthy; failure to see the explanation of P.W.1 with regard to the nonseizure of the records or invoice of the muster roll is not properly explained except saying that P.W.1 is not concerned with the said aspect; the visit of the P.W.1 is highly doubtful as he had not prepared any sketch of the scene of offence and noted physical marks of the scene in Ex.P9 while preparing the alleged panchanama; Ex.P1 was only a photocopy and an unattested one which ought not to have been relied upon; P.W.2 is only an indirect witness who had stated that he did not know about the inspection conducted by P.W.1; and urged to allow the revision case.