LAWS(MPH)-1985-1-48

SONDUR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On January 31, 1985
Sondur And Others Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 425 of 1984 (Mst. Jhunia Bai wife of Kanhai Gouli Vs. The Slate of M.P.) and Criminal Revision No. 426 and 1984 (Sunderlal s/o Shanker Gouli Vs. The Slate of M.P.).

(2.) Food Inspector Krishna Chandra Pancholi (P.W. 1) filed three separate complaints in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Betul against three different persons, each of whom has tiled a separate revision, which have been numbered as stated above. The allegation in each of the complaint was that each of the three petitioners was on 4-9-1981 selling milk without a licence and that each of them had prevented him i.e. the Food Inspector from taking the sample as authorised by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The trial 'Magistrate found each of the petitioner guilty for the alleged offences and convicted each of them under Sec. 7(iii) read with Sec. 16(l)(c)(ii) of the Act and sentenced each of them to R.I. for one day and a fine of Rs. 100.00, in default R I. for ten days. Each of the petitioner was also convicted under-Section 10(l)(a)(i) read with Sec. 16(l)(c) of the Act and was sentenced to R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default R.I. for one and a half months. Aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, each of the petitioners filed an appeal. These appeals were disposed by Sessions Judge, Betul, by a common judgment dated 9 7-1984, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1984. The learned Sessions Judge dismissing the appeals of the petitioner up held their convictions and sentences. Aggrieved thereby these three revisions have been filed by each of the petitioner.

(3.) In the trial Court in each of the three cases, Food Inspector Pancholi (P.W.l) and Shahadat (P.W. 2) were examined as witnesses for the complainant and Hiralal was examined as a defence witness. As the record indicates, the evidence had separately been recorded. I would, therefore, take every case separately.