(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated 4. 8. 84 whereby the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dt. 22. 9. 83 was confirmed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner u/s. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to six months' R. I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further six months' R. I. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner was running a shop of sweets. On 2. 6. 79, Food Inspector Purshottam Vyas inspected the shop of the petitioner situated at Pungalpada, Jodhpur. He took samples of 'tawapudi'. The samples were sealed and sent to Public Analyst, Jaipur. The samples were found to be adulterated by Public Analyst due to addition of non-permitted coaltar-dye vide report dt. 10. 7. 79 (Ex. P-9) as also by the Director, Central Food vide his report dt. 6. 10. 80 (Ex. P-15) comtained at the instance of the accused. A complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner on 26. 10. 79. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal, but the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 4. 8. 84, Hence this revision.
(2.) MR. M. M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire trial is vitiated as there is violation of sec. 16-A. He has also submitted that in sweet colour can be used as per Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and further that there is no finding that the colour used was not one of the two colours permitted under Rule 28. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Man Singh Vs. State (1), Darshan Lal vs. State (2) and Bhogilal Hargovind Das Petel vs. The State of Gujarat (3)He has prayed that the conviction of the petitioner be quashed as the matter is pending since 2. 6. 79.