BHERU 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. 15/4/2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.96/2006 whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the judgment dtd. 1/9/2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh in Criminal Regular Case No.358/1996 whereby learned trial Judge convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo six months' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

(2.) Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that the Food Inspector Naval Kishore Mehta submitted a complaint before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh to the effect that on 3/4/1996 at about 07:30 AM, during patrolling at Nehru Nagar, Kotadi he found the petitioner was carrying milk in two iron containers. The food inspector collected 750 ml. milk from the petitioner for testing on payment of Rs.4.50 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 sample was tested and the same was found to be adulterated. 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 four 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. In defence, no witness was examined. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor 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. 1/9/2006. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dtd. 15/4/2009. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.