R.P.Shukla, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 13-10-1986 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No. 225 of 1985 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order of the Special judicial Magistrate First Class Hapur dated 4-11-1985, convicting the applicant under section 7/16 P. F. Act to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has pressed this revision firstly that the Trial Court did not give opportunity to the defence to cross examine the witnesses after the charges were refrained. I have perused the judgments of b?th the courts below and I find that such opportunity was offered but the defence did not choose to cross examine the witnesses. Learned counsel for the applicant has also pressed this revision on the ground that there is some variation between the report of Public Analyst and the report of Central Food Laboratory Csicutta. To my mind this variation does not take the case out of the ambit of adulteration. The adulteration is very much there.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has also Contended that no public witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove its case. Both the courts have relied upon the evidence of witnesses, that were produced for prosecution and have recorded concurrent finding of facts which can not be termed as perverse. Lastly the learned counsel for the applicant has urged that after re- framing of charge fresh sanction ought to have been obtained by the prosecution. There was no alteration in facts. Only charges were reframed and to my mind no fresh sanction in such circumstances is necessary.;