JAI GOPAL 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. 17/6/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.289/2012, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dtd. 29/6/2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No.404/1999 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo one year simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,200.00 and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo fifteen days' SI.

(2.) Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 27/3/1995 the Food Inspector Sarwan Singh Barad inspected Kake Da Hotel at Bus Stand Gadarkheda where PW.2 Keval Krishan (servant at the hotel) was present and food licence for the year 1995 was not found. Upon a suspicion, he purchased 600 gms. wheat flour on payment of Rs.3.00 to PW.2 Keval Krishan. Thereafter, at the same time, a notice on form No.6 was given to PW.2 Keval Krishan regarding sample collection of wheat flour. After following due procedure, the samples were tested and the same were found to be adulterated. Upon which, a complaint was presented against the petitioner after obtaining prosecution sanction.

(3.) The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7/16 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 upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dtd. 29/6/2012. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dtd. 17/6/2013. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.