SHYAM SUNDER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioner - Shyam Sunder against the Judgment and Order dtd. 22/9/2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Gangapur City (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No. 6/2005 (Shyam Sunder vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which the criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner has been dismissed, affirming the judgment and Order dtd. 28/1/2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City (hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 1043/2003 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Shyam Sunder), whereby the trial court convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

(2.) Facts of the case, in short, are that the complainant K.P. Sharma, the then Food Inspector, Gangapur City submitted a complaint to the effect that on 30/4/1998 at around 7.00 AM when the petitioner was selling milk, a sample was taken and sent to the laboratory for testing. As per the test report the said sample was found adulterated. On that basis, a case was registered against the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of P.F.A Act. The statement of allegation was read over to the accused- petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of PFA Act, who denied for the same and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dtd. 28/1/2005 and convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of PFA Act, as stated above. Aggrieved by judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 28/1/2005, accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which passed the Judgment and Order dtd. 22/9/2008 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the trial court. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.