VITHAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 21-6-2004, rendered by XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 217/2004; arising out order dated 7-4-2004 passed in Criminal Case No. 6249/95 thereby finding the applicant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 (i) and 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, 'the Act') and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 1000/ -.

(2.) THE prosecution case Multum in Purvo is that on 18th May, 1995 in the night at 1. 30 p. m. from Sainath Home Industries of the applicant. Food Inspector, Prabhakar Kulkarni collected sample of chilli powder. After completing the procedure of taking sample, the same was sent to Public Analyst, Bhopal. The office of the local self authority has received report (Ex. P-13) and covering letter (Ex. P-12) proved by Food Inspector (P. W. 1 ). According to this report, sample was below prescribed standard, therefore, the same was found to be adulterated. Complaint was filed by Food Inspector before the Trial Court on 9-11-1995.

(3.) LEARNED Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charge against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 7 (i) and 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act on 8-5-1995. The case was proceeded as warrant trial. The applicant denied charges therefore, put to trial. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after examining prosecution witness and defence witness and hearing both the parties, convicted the applicant as indicated above, against which the applicant went up in appeal and the same was also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court. Hence, this revision against the impugned judgment.