SURENDRA KUMAR 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. 6/2/2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 3, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No. 199/2008 (55/2003), whereby the learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment dtd. 14/5/2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Regular Case No. 78/1996 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7/16 (1-A)(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo one year's simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.2000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's S.I.

(2.) Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 2/6/1988 the Food Inspector Rajendra Prasad Vasudev submitted a complaint before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh to the effect that on 24/2/1988, he purchased some sweets (Laddu) for a consideration of Rs.15.00 from the shop of Vijay Kumar Surendra Kumar, situated at Gurudwara Gali of Hanumangarh Junction. After following due procedure, the samples were sent for testing and the same were found to be adulterated.

(3.) The Learned Magistrate framed the charge against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7/17 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 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(1-A)(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dtd. 14/5/2003. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dtd. 6/2/2009. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this Court.