S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) Rajeshwar Parshad, petitioner, was brought to trial on a charge under Sec. 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (1954), before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala Cantt. Finding the petitioner guilty of having been found in possession of adulteration ground-dhania in violation of the provisions of the statute above mentioned, he was convicted thereunder and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, in detail, noticed the specific arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner, and repelling each of them, has up-held the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.
(2.) It is evident from the record that at the revisional stage, the lone argument which would possibly be available to the petitioner, now stands concluded against him by the judgment of the final Court. The main ground pressed before the trial and appellate courts was that the sample sent to the Public Analyst was 450 grams against the prescribed quantity of 600 grams and therefore, there was an infraction of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (1955). This argument was apparently based on the earlier view in Rajaldas G. Pamnani Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1975 (1) FAC 1. In the subsequent judgment State of Kerala etc. Vs. Alasserry Mohammed etc. 1978 (I) FAC 145 a Larger Bench had occasion to consider the correctness of the view and in an exhaustive judgment, the earlier judgment has been over-ruled. In view of this, there appears to be no merit in this revision petition. Affirming the findings and the reasons of the appellate court, I hereby dismiss the revision petition. Petition dismissed.;