POORAN MAL 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. 13/10/2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta in Criminal appeal No. 4/2001 (Old No. 24/2000), whereby the learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment dtd. 16/9/2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta City in Criminal Case No. 215/1996 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7/16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo six months' R.I. alongwith a fine of Rs.1000.00 and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo two months' additional imprisonment.

(2.) Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 20/10/1996 the complainant Food Inspector inspected the drum containing milk which was being carried by the petitioner on his motorcycle. Upon a suspicion, he purchased 750 ML milk on payment of Rs.7.50 to the petitioner. Thereafter, at the same time, a notice on form No. 6 was given to the petitioner regarding sample collection of milk. 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.

(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 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) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dtd. 16/9/2000. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dtd. 13/10/2003. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this Court.