BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.T. ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the judgment dated November 11, 1995, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby his appeal against the judgment dated February 27, 1992 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh was dismissed and the conviction of the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- were maintained.

(2.) AS per the prosecution version, the Government Food Inspector took the sample of milk from the petitioner on November 28, 1985 at about 8.00 a.m. After the aforesaid sample was got analysed from the Laboratory, the same was found to be adulterated. Accordingly, a complaint was filed under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. After the prosecution led its evidence, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Judge, as aforesaid. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Now, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid judgments of the learned Courts below.

(3.) AS far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned, the same stands duly proved by the statements of the witnesses, namely, M.K. Sharma PW1 Food Inspector who has stated with regard to taking of the sample from the petitioner. The report of the Public Analyst is Ex. PW2/A. PW2 Surinder Kumar, Assistant in the office of Local Health Authority had brought the summoned record and proved the report. Nothing has been shown to me that the prosecution version suffers from any infirmity or that the judgments of the learned Courts below are in any manner improper. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the learned Courts below is upheld.