MANGILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Sec. 397/401 of Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the judgment dtd. 28/5/2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Criminal appeal No.5/2001, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dtd. 16/3/2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mavli, District Udaipur in Regular Criminal Case No.360/1996 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Ss. 7(V) Rule 50(i) & 7(1) R/w 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000.00 and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 1 month's SI.

(2.) Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 25/3/1996 the Food Inspector inspected the shop of the petitioner situated in Village Laxmanpura, Panchayat Majavada, District Udaipur, where the petitioner was selling food articles. The petitioner was informed about the inspection of the shop, however, he did not show any licence. Upon a suspicion that the mustard oil kept in the shop is adulterated, sample of the same was taken following due procedure. The same was found adulterated in testing, Upon which, a complaint was presented against the petitioner after obtaining prosecution sanction.

(3.) The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for the offences under Sec. 7(V), Rule 50(i) and Sec. 7(1) R/w 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offence, examined the witnesses and exhibited various documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Sec. 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offences under Sec. 7(V) Rule 50(i) and Sec. 7(1) R/w 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dtd. 16/3/2001. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dtd. 28/5/2003. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.