PRIYATOSH DUTTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the Judgment and order dated 22,3.1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Dibmgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 29(3) of 1983 affirming the sentences passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Dibrugarh in C.R. Case No. 1395 of 1982 convicting petitioner under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default R.I. for another 2 months.

(2.) The petitioner Priyatosh Dutta, Nimal Dey and M/s. Hiralal Ratneswar were charged with offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated turmeric powder. After hearing the parties, the learned Judicial Magistrate found them guilty of offence under section 16/7 of the Act and sentenced Priyatosh Dutta and Nima Dutta to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 each in default R.I. for another 2 months each and M/s. Hiralal Ratneswar a firm, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 29(3) of 1983 affirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner Priyatosh Dutta and acquitted Nimai Dey and M/s. Hiralal Ratneswar of the charge.

(3.) It is settled law that the High Court under section 401, Code Criminal Procedure is not to act as an appellate Court. The High Court will exercise its discretion under section 401, Code Criminal Procedure when there is error in procedure or glarring defect on the point of law which has occasioned the miscarriage of justice. The present case is a case of concurrent findings of facts. I do not find any defect in procedure or any error which has occasioned the miscarriage of justice. I am therefore not inclined to interfere with the conclusion reached by the Courts below.