BAJRANG LAL 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 15.5.2004 passed by Sessions Judge Baran, in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2004 whereby he dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment dated 22.2.2002 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Baran in Criminal Case No. 202/2000 whereby the accused petitioner was convicted under section 7 and 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,00/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month rigorous 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 Rishi Kumar against the petitioner stating therein that on 25.10.1997 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 rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to suffer further one month rigorous imprisonment vide judgment dated 22.2.2002. Thereafter the accused petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of the trial court before the Sessions Judge Baran. The Sessions Judge, Baran after hearing the arguments dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide his judgment dated 15.5.2004. Aggrieved against both these orders of the trial courts dated 22.2.2002 and 15.5.2004 this revision petition has been preferred.

(3.) Mr. Ganesh Meena, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has contended that the judgments dated 15.5.2004 and 22.2.2002 passed by both the courts below are patently illegal and perverse to the facts on the record. He has further pointed out that PW.2 Kesri Lal has not supported the prosecution story and was declared hostile. He has not even supported the basic requirements for alleged offence and the other two witnesses are one is complainant himself and another is his colleague Food Inspector. These facts clearly shows that the whole case is false and fabricated. The analyst report is prepared on 3.11.1997 and in the notice under section 13(2) it is stated that same is dated 1.11.1997. Such a material and legal aspect of the case has not been given due considerations by the courts below. 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 1997 which is 15 years ago and the accused petitioner is facing trial for the last 15 years. This caused mental agony which is more than conviction and hence he should be released on probation.