S.S. Dewan, J. - (1.) Suraj Prakash petitioner was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Rohtak for an offence under Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act). He was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,009.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak in an elaborate judgment not merely upheld his conviction but also confirmed his sentence. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now come up by way of revision.
(2.) The brief facts are that on 25-12-1976, Mahant Lal, Government Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. D. R. Yadav purchased 600 gms. of shakkar from the petitioner from his shop for analysis. He divided the sample into three parts and sent one part for chemical examination. The Public Analyst found the sample to be adulterated with prohibited yellow and orange coal-tar dye. Upon challah, the prosecution examined three witnesses namely Mahant Lal, Dr. D.R. Yadav and Kharati Lal and closed the evidence. The accused was also examined and he refused to lead any evidence in defence.
(3.) The petitioner took rather vacillating plea in defence. The trial court unhesitatingly found that the defence plea taken by the petitioner was merely a cock and bull story and rejected it out of hand. The appellate court has affirmed the said finding. Mr. Methtani appearing for the petitioner has raised the identical arguments which were earlier urged before the appellate court and which have been elaborately repelled. To my mind, it would be totally wasteful to treat the same ground over again. It suffices to mention that 1 would endorse into it the reasoning and the findings of the appellate;