GIRDHARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused -petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397, 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 8.10.1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pali whereby the conviction and sentence passed under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali has been upheld.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case are that on 2.2.1983, the Food Inspector took a sample from the accused -petitioner who was selling milk to the public and was having four drums of milk in his possession. A sample of 660 MI. was taken by paying due amount and by adding formal in to each sample and after sealing the same one sample was sent to public analysis for examination. Due sanction was obtained and when milk was found to be adulterated, a complaint was made. The trial Court after full trial on the basis of evidence produced convicted the accused -petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/ -; in default thereof further to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. Against which the accused -petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the appellate Court. Hence, this revision.

(3.) THIS is a revision petition against the judgment of two Courts below having concurrent finding about the conviction. The revisional jurisdiction is only supervisory jurisdiction unless there is gross violation of law or miscarriage of justice or jurisdictional error, the Court cannot go into these factual aspects of the matter and cannot review the judgment passed. Learned Counsel without going into the details of the evidence simply submitted that the trial Court while examining the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not put any question about the public analyst's report. In food adulteration matter the report of public analysis is main basis or crux of the prosecution and the trial Court has not even put a single question about this report. In absence of this question a prejudice is caused to the accused because he did not have any chance or opportunity to file reply about the same. In absence of this important question, the conviction as awarded cannot be sustained.