- (1.) The symposium of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, petitioner Hans Raj was charge sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") by the trial Court as under:- "That on 19.9.1997, at about 11.00 A.M. in the area of Nurmehal Road Phillaur, G.F.I. Sukhrao Singh alongwith Dr.Harjit Lal Bharti intercepted you and purchased 750 ml of mixed milk for Rs.7.50 Ps for analysis after doing all formalities according to act one of the sample bottle was sent to Public Analyst Chandigarh, who declare the same to be adulterated, so you thereby contravened provisions of section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Rule 50 of the said Act. So you are directed to show cause as to why you should not be punished under the above said section and within my cognizance."
(2.) Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court convicted & sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 16 (1) (a) read with Section 7 of the Act, vide impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 11.3.2005. The appeal filed by him was dismissed as well, by the appellate court, by virtue of impugned judgment dated 19.10.2005.
(3.) The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present revision petition to set aside the impugned judgments of the Courts below, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.PC.;