BAL KISHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case P.W. 1 Dr. H. P. Nandi, the then Dy. Chief Medical Officer cum Food Inspector. Bharatpur is stated to have purchased the sample mixed milk from the shop of the petitioner at Basan Gate. Public Analyst who declared the same adulterated for being deficient in solid-non-fat contents by 0. 5% and having 6% of added water. On trial, the learned Chief Judicial, Bharatpur found the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act), convicted him as such and sentenced him to S.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 2000/-. On appeal the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharatpur confirmed the order of conviction as also of sentence as had been made by the learned C.J.M. Hence this petition under Section 397, Cr. P.C.

(2.) Mr. Tripurari Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that in this case grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner by not appreciating the evidence on record in right perspective with particular reference to the defence evidence bought on the record of the case. It was also pointed out that the milk was not only meant for petitioners own use but also was found deficient by 0.5% in solids non-fat whereas the fat contents were much in excess of the prescribed standard. It was submitted that at any rate, the case was of very doubtful character and reliance in this behalf was placed on a decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Babu Lal v. State of M.P., (1988) 1 FAC 142. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, supported the impugned judgments and orders.

(3.) This Court does not ordinarily disturb the concurrent findings of fact in exercise of its revisory power under Section 397, Cr. P.C. unless it feels, on examination of the records of the inferior Courts, that such findings are incorrect and the orders made improper. In order to satisfy myself as to the correctness of the findings recorded and the propriety of the order of conviction of the petitioner made I examined the record of the inferior Courts and came to the conclusion that this is a fit case wherein this Court should interfere.