S.C. Mital, J. - (1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar dismissing the appeal of Atam Parkash against his conviction under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 (l)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence imposed on him.
(2.) Mainly, learned counsel for Atam Parkash has contended that the provision of Sec. 13(2) of the above-said Act was not complied with, inasmuch as, the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not forwarded to Atam Parkash. I have been taken through the judgment of the appellate Court in particular dealing with this aspect of the case in depth. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that no case is made out to interfere with the finding of fact against Atam Parkash in this regard.
(3.) It was lastly urged that the foodstuff in question did not belong to Atam Parkash and that Lakshmi Chand (D.W. 2) left it with him. The evidence led by Atam Parkash in support of this plea was thoroughly considered by the trial Magistrate and he recorded a finding against him. Learned counsel for Atam Parkash is unable to show that this finding of fact was ever assailed before the appellate Court. The clear inference, therefore, is that the learned counsel who conducted the case did not consider it worthwhile to press the finding of fact recorded against Atam Parkash before the appellate Court.;