KAMAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Sec. 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. challenge has been made to the judgment dtd. 7/7/2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Criminal appeal No. 16/2000, whereby the learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 30/3/2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 107/1995; whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 months alongwith a fine of Rs.2,000.00 with default sentence of 7 days' simple imprisonment.

(2.) Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 9/10/1995, Mr. P.C. Harsh, Food Inspector, inspected the shop of the accused petitioners M/s. Rajesh Kirana and Provision Store situated at Ghantaghar, Jodhpur. Petitioner Kamal Kishore was found selling food articles. He told that the owner of the shop is Rajesh. The Food Inspector purchased 1.5 kg. salt from the shop paying Rs.2.25 and took three samples of same and got it tested from Public Analyst, who gave a report that the sample was adulterated, upon which, after taking prosecution sanction, a complaint was filed against the petitioners.

(3.) The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioners for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act and upon denial of guilt by them, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 3 witnesses and exhibited various documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in their statements under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. One witness was examined in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Court convicted the accused petitioners for offence under Sec. 7/16 of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dtd. 30/3/2000. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, they preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dtd. 7/7/2001 affirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this Court.