SUKHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Final arguments heard. Perused the record. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17/11/2005 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Cr. A.No. 156/04, whereby the judgment dated 7/12/2004 passed by CJM, Ratlam in criminal Case No. 2360/94, whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under section 7 (1) read with 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was confirmed and the sentence of six months RI with fine of Rs. 1,000.00 was also confirmed, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) Petitioner was presecuted by the respondent under the provision of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (which shall be referred hereinafter as an Act), alleging that on 12/3/2003 petitioner was going to market to sell Buffalo Milk Product (Mawa). It was alleged that the sample was taken and after the report of analyst it was found that the alleged milk product was adulterated. It was prayed that the petitioner be convicted. After the trial it was found that the Mawa which was in possession of the petitioner was adulterated. Hence the petitioner was convicted and was sentenced for a period of six months with fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in appeal the sentence was confirmed, hence the revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that petitioner has been convicted illegally while petitioner has not committed any offence. It is submitted that learned Courts below completely overlooked the fact that the milk product was not for sale. It is submitted that mandatory provisions of the Act were not complied with, hence the prosecution itself was bad in law. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Courts below committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence which resulted incorrect judgment and is liable to be set aside in this revision. It is submitted that the learned Courts below committed error in not considering that material omissions and contradictions appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that petitioner was in jail w.e.f. 17/11/2005. Bail was granted by this Court vide order dated 7.12.2005 and thereafter petitioner was released on bail. Learned counsel submits that the conviction and sentence be set aside.