KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1995 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2005.

(2.) This criminal revision petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dtd. 28/11/2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror, District Alwar in Criminal Appeal No.50/2005, as well as against the judgment dtd. 10/12/1999 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Behror, District Alwar in Criminal Case No.97/96, whereby the revisionist-petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to six months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000.00 and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the Food Inspector - Shri SD Sharma filed a compliant alleging that he made an inspection on 22/4/1995 at 7.30 AM in presence of the witnesses and found Kartar Singh, petitioner, was selling cow milk. On suspicion of adulteration, he took sample of milk and sent the same to the Public Analyst for testing, wherein the milk was found adulterated. After obtaining prosecution sanction from Local (Health) Authority, Alwar, complaint was filed against the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint, a cognizance for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act of 1954") was taken and proceedings were initiated. In the proceedings, the petitioner denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In the statement, recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied for the prosecution allegation and stated that he never remained in the business of selling milk. It is also stated that due to enmity, the witnesses named him. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court passed the judgment dtd. 10/12/1999 and convicted and sentenced the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order dtd. 10/12/1999, passed by learned trial Court, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court, based on the material and evidence available before it, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and maintained the conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court. Hence, this petition.