NARESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition has been filed under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 20.8.2004 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities, Alwar in Criminal Appeal No. 42/2004 whereby he dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment dated 19.11.2003 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1 Alwar in Criminal Case No. 281/2001 whereby the accused petitioner was convicted under section 7 and 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to 6 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that a complaint under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954 came to be filed by the Food Inspector Kunj Bihari Bhardwaj against the petitioner stating therein that on 9.9.1996 he collected the milk sample from the accused petitioner which on testing was found to be adulterated i.e. not confirming to the prescribed standards under the Act of 1954. It was therefore averred that the petitioner has committed an offence under the Act of 1954. After hearing the arguments, the trial court found the petitioner guilty for offence under section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to 6 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer further fifteen days simple imprisonment vide judgment dated 19.11.2003. Thereafter the accused petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of the trial court before the Sessions Judge Alwar which was transferred for disposal in the court of Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Alwar. The Special Judge after hearing the arguments dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide his judgment dated 20.8.2004. Aggrieved against both these orders of the trial courts dated 19.11.2003 and 20.8.2004 this revision petition has been preferred.

(3.) Mr. Mahendra Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has contended that the judgments dated 20.8.2004 and 19.11.2003 passed by both the courts below are patently illegal and perverse to the facts on the record. He has further pointed out that Ex. P.8 prepared by the analyst is dated 18.9.1996 while test was conducted on 12.9.1996. No explanation has been given as to why the report was prepared six days after examination of the sample. Ex. P.8 does not reflect nor PW.4 has stated tha the contents of the sample were made homogenious and thoroughly shaking the bottle before the sample was put to test. In these circumstances it was prayed by the accused petitioner that the conviction cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He has further drawn attention of the prosecution witnesses and documents submitted by the prosecution. Hence he has requested to this court that the matter belongs to alleged incident of 1996 which is 16 years ago and the accused petitioner is facing trial for the last 16 years. This caused mental agony which is more than conviction ahd hence he should be released on probation.