PREM PRAKASH 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. 17/12/2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal appeal No. 47/2004, whereby the learned Appellate Court partly allowed the petitioner's appeal and while maintaining his conviction for offence under Sec. 7/16 R/w Rule 50(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, reduced the sentence from one years S.I. to six months S.I. along with a fine of Rs.1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 15 days' S.I., as passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur vide judgment dtd. 25/11/2004 in Cr. Original Case No. 149/2000.

(2.) Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 17/9/1999 the complainant Omprakash Kalla, Food Inspector took samples of cow milk from the shop of the petitioner. After following due procedure, the samples were analyzed 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 r/w Rule 50(1) 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 R/w Rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dtd. 25/11/2004. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dtd. 17/12/2004 and while maintaining the petitioner's conviction, reduced his sentence. Hence, this revision petition.