A. K. GOSWAMI, J. - (1.)THIS revision petition is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 25.3.2004 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Nagaon in Criminal Appeal No.53(N)/2002, affirming the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.2002 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hojai at Sankardev Nagar in CR Case No. 287/2000, whereby the accused/petitioner was convicted under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for short, the Act and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs 1000/- and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) months.
(2.)THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 1.3.2000, Shri D.D. Borah, the Food Inspector of Hojai at the relevant point of time along with his peon, one Sri Samsul Haque Borbhuyan, visited the shop premises of the petitioner and collected sample of beson which was stored for sale for human consumption, by observing all the formalities and, thereafter, the same was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. THE Public Analyst, on examination of the sample of beson, vide report dated 11.4.2000 opined that the sample of beson is adulterated indicating also in such report that in the sample of beson, there was 70% added powdered pea. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, on the prayer of the Food Inspector, the Local Health Authority accorded sanction to launch prosecution against the petitioner and, accordingly, the Food Inspector submitted offence report against the petitioner on 16.5.2000 under Sections 7/16 of the Act in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hojai at Sankardev Nagar.
On receipt of summons, the petitioner appeared before the learned Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hojai at Sankardev Nagar and particulars of offence under Sections 7/16 of the Act having been explained to the petitioner, the petitioner pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

During trial, the prosecution examined the Food Inspector and the peon who had accompanied the Food Inspector as PW-1 and PW-2, respectively. The accused petitioner, when examined under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations.

(3.)ON conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, finding the accused petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him, convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as has been indicated hereinbefore. The appeal preferred by the petitioner having also been dismissed, the aoresaid Judgments are impugned in the present revision application.
I have heard Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. I have also perused the materials on record.