SANJAY RATILAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order rendered by learned Additional Ses-sions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra on 13.6.2000 in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 1995 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal upheld the judgment and order of conviction rendered by learned Ju-dicial Magistrate First Class. J.unavada on 7.6.1995 in Criminal Case No. 254 of 1987 whereby the applicant who was original accused in said criminal case came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 16 r/w Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adultera-tion Act ('PFA Act', for short) and was sentenced to undergo R.I for two years and fine of Rs.3,000 and in default of payment of fine, R.I for six months, the applicant original accused has chal-lenged the legality and validity of his conviction by preferring this revision application under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution case in nutshell is that Food Inspector ('FI', for short) Mr. K. A. Patel visited the shop of the applicantaccused on dated 22.1.1987 situated at Shahera town. The FI collected sample of turmeric powder, and when the sample was analysed by the Chemi-cal Analyser, it was revealed that the sample was not in confirmity with the standards laid down under the Prevention of Food Adultera-tion Rules ('PFA Rules', for short). It was also revealed that the applicant original accused No. 1 was found present in the shop when the sample was collected by the FI and the owner of the shop was original accused No.2 Ratilal Chandulal Shah. That the sanction was ac-corded by the competent authority to launch criminal prosecution against both the accused, namely, the applicant original accused No.l and coaccused No.2 Ratilal Chandulal Shah. Ac-cordingly, complaint was filed against both the accused in the Court of learned JMFC, Lunavada by the FI, which was registered as Criminal Case No.254 of 1987. Initially, the trial Court framed charge at Ex.90, to which the ac-cused did not plead guilty. Thereafter, vide or-der below application, Ex. 111, the charge came to be amended on 31.5.1995 and the accused did not plead guilty to the amended charge as well. Considering the evidence on record and the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, the trial Court recorded conviction of the applicant original accused No.l for the offence punishable under Section 16 r/w Section 7 of the PFA Act and recorded acquittal of original accused No.2 Ratilal Chandulal Shah, owner of the shop. The original accused No.l who came to be convicted by the trial Court chal-lenged his conviction by preferring Criminal Appeal No.22 of 1995 in Sessions Court, Panchmahals at Godhra and the learned Addi-tional Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 13.6.2000 dismissed the appeal and con-firmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.

(3.) 1 have heard the learned advocate, Mr. Y. M. Thakkar, for the applicant original accused No.l and learned A.P.P., Mr. Sejpal, for the re-spondent State.