DEVI LAL 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. 16/12/2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Criminal appeal No. 69/2002, whereby the learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment dtd. 15/10/1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand in Criminal Regular Case No. 105/1998 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo one year's simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000.00 and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 3 months'.

(2.) Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 13/8/1986, the Food Inspector inspected the shop M/s. Madan Lal Vinod Kumar Jain situated in Village Richhed and found petitioner Devilal selling food articles. Upon enquiry, he introduced himself as the owner of the shop and showed the licence. Upon a suspicion that the sesame seed oil (Tilli ka tel) 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 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 as many as 3 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. Two witnesses were 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 and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dtd. 15/10/1998. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dtd. 16/12/2002. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this Court.