- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition which was filed questioning correctness of the conviction for offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(1) and Section 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act') and also under Rule 5 read with Appendix B, Item A.07.08 and Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short the 'Rules'). The appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation as recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kochi. The learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in appeal modified the sentence and reduced it to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
(3.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 22.5.2000 at about 4.00 p.m., the Food Inspector, P.W. 1 inspected the shop of the appellant by name "Bejoy Fruits and Vegetables". He found four bottles of Sarbath (synthetic syrup) each of 700 ml. capacity, which were kept for sale. He bought one bottle of synthetic syrup, on paying Rs. 40/-, Ex.P.4 being the voucher for payment. He sampled it according to the procedure. After analysis, he obtained Ex.P. 12 report, which showed that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed under the rules and, therefore, was adulterated. Accordingly, he proceeded against the appellant. Since accused abjured guilt, trial was held.;