DEVI LAL 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. 29/5/2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 83/2001, whereby learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment dtd. 20/4/2001 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in Criminal Original Case No. 127/1994 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7/16 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 RI. The petitioner was also sentenced by the Trial Court for the breach of Rule 50(1) of Food & Adulteration Rules and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 15 days' RI.

(2.) Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 6/4/1993, in the morning at about 7.45 AM, Food Inspector, Chittorgarh apprehended the petitioner in front of Meera Hotel while the petitioner was going to sell milk by a motor-cycle. The Food Inspector purchased 750 ML milk from the petitioner and after preparing the sample, Rojnamcha was prepared. The sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory, Udaipur and on receiving the report, the same was found to be adulterated. Upon which, a complaint was prepared and after receiving sanction, the Food Inspector submitted a complaint against the petitioner for offence under Sec. 7/16 of PF Act.

(3.) The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of PF Act and under Rule 50(1) of PF Rules and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offence, examined three witnesses. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., 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 offence under Sec. 7/16 of PF Act and under Rule 50(1) of PF Rules vide judgment dtd. 20/4/2001. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dtd. 29/5/2003. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this Court.