GOPAL LAL SHARMA 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. 9/2/2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No. 222/2019, whereby the learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment dtd. 17/9/2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bhilwara in Regular Criminal Case No. 912/2011 (320/2010) convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 16(1)(a)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and under Rule 50(1) R/o Sec. 16(1)(a)(ii) of PFA Act and sentencing him to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's Addl. R.I. For violation of Rule 50(1) of PFA Rules, the learned Trial Court also awarded the same sentence.

(2.) Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 30/8/2010 the Food Inspector Sanjay submitted a complaint before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bhilwara to the effect that on 23/2/2010, he inspected the drums containing milk which were being carried by the petitioner on his motorcycle. Upon a suspicion, he purchased 1500 ML milk and upon examination, the same was found to be adulterated. Upon which, a complaint was presented against the petitioner.

(3.) The Learned Magistrate framed the charge against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7/16 and Rule 50 of PFA Rules R/w Sec. 16(1)(a)(ii) of PFA 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. 16(1)(a)(ii) of PFA Act and Rule 50(1) R/w Sec. 16(1)(a)(ii) PFA Act vide judgment dtd. 17/9/2019. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dtd. 9/2/2024. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this Court.