CHAMPA LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, dated March 7, 1972, affirming the judgment dated November 4, 1969, of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Salumber, whereby he convicted the accused-petitioner under S. 7/16, of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, No. XXXVII of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 900/-; in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in a nutshell, is that on February 16, 1968 P. W. 1 Bhanwarlal, Food Inspector inspected and checked the shop of the accused-petitioner. Having disclosed his identity to the accused-petitioner the Inspector served him with a notice in Form No. VI (Ex. P. 1) and purchased 375 Grams of mustard oil for Rs. 187 paisa. THE oil was divided into three parts. Each part has then filled in a bottle All the three bottles were sealed in the presence of the petitioner. A memorandum containing the details of the action taken by the Food Inspector was prepared and has been marked Ex. P. 2. It bears the signatures of the Food Inspector P. W. 1 Bhanwar Lal, as those of the two attesting witnesses Devilal and Sohanlal. It also bears the signatures of the accused-petitioner Champalal Jain. One sample battle was given to the accused petitioner and the other was sent to the Public Analyst at Udaipur along with a specimen of the seal impression. THE form containing the specimen seal is Ex. P. 3. THE third bottle was retained by the Food Inspector. THE sealed bottle was received by the Public Analyst on February 20, 1968. THE Public Analyst received the bottle for analysis properly sealed and fastened and the seal was noticed by him to be in tact, unbroken, and similar to the seal impression given on the memorandum. An endorsement to that effect has been made by the Public Analyst in Ex. P. 4. He analysed the contents of the bottle and declared the result as under : -

(3.) THE proper packing of bottles containing the sample of mustard oil is a question of fact, as also of accepting the evidence furnished by the prosecution regarding proper compliance of the Rules But the jurisdiction of this Court in criminal revision petitions is severely restricted, and it cannot embark upon re-appreciation of the evidence. THE learned counsel for the accused petitioner has failed to point out any cogent reason to hold that the compliance of Rules 14 and 16 was not made in the case on hand.