S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) In this judgment confirming the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the trial Magistrate and categorically confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, it would be patently wasteful to traverse the whole ground over again. It suffices to mention that Charanjit Kumar petitioner was held guilty under Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar. The conviction and sentence have been confirmed in an exhaustive judgment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Mr. Harinder Singh appearing for the petitioner has in fact raised the same arguments, which had been the subject matter of discussion by the appellate Court. For the reasons recorded in paragraphs 17 to 28 of the judgment under appeal, I repell the same.
(2.) Mr. Harinder Singh had again sought to re-open the pure question of fact, which both the Courts below have concurrently held against the petitioner. It suffices to notice that the basic plea of the petitioner, which was again pressed before me, was that P.W.1, Dr. Talwar and P.W. 2, Shakti Saroop had procured the signatures of the petitioner on the memos Exhibits PA, PB and PC, under the false pretence of allegedly making him a witness in the case, rather than the accused. Apart from the farcical nature of the said defence, it is significant to note that no hint of previous enmity or bias was even alleged against these two witnesses for indulging in any such treachery. As noticed, the whole case was that the petitioner had been inveigled into signing the aforesaid documents on the ground that he was being set up as a witness against an accused. The petitioner on his own showing is a licencee under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and such a stark innocence cannot be easily assumed in the case of a licencee. Nor could it be explained why Dr. Talwar or Shri Shakti Saroop, who admittedly have no animus against the petitioner, would pick upon him for hoisting so serious a charge as the one under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(3.) The revision petition appears to be plainly without merit and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.;