- (1.)THIS revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated 8.7.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raisen in criminal appeal No. 79/96 upholding the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen, in criminal case No. 93/90.
(2.)NO exhaustive statement of facts are necessary for the disposal of this revision petition. Suffice it to say that on 26.12.1989 the Food Inspector Ramkripal Singh (PW 1) came to the shop of the applicant and purchased 600 gms. of jaggery (gurh). Thereafter, he added 48 drops of formalin and divided the sample in three equal parts and sealed each content in separate ploythene bags. The Food Inspector after performing the necessary formalities, as required under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') sent the same for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst vide its report (Ex. P -13) found the sample to be adulterated and as such the applicant was prosecuted.
The trial Court framed charges under section 7(l)/16(l)(a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act'). Needless to say, the applicant abjured the guilt.

(3.)IN order to prove the charges, the Food Inspector examined himself and also examined one chain Singh (PW 2) and Mukundilal (PW 3), who were the panch witnesses and brought Ex. P -1 to Ex. P -17, the documents on record.