Banwari Lal Sharma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the Judgment dated 12.01.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 23/1995 whereby he upheld the judgment dated 02.11.1995 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 218/1994 whereby he convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 7/16 and 50(i) r/w Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him as under: - U/s. 7/16 Six months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/ - in default whereof to further undergo 3 months' simple imprisonment. 50(i) r/w. 7/16 10 days' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/ - in default whereof to further undergo 10 days' simple imprisonment.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Food Inspector submitted a complaint before the learned trial court to the effect that on 19.06.1994, he inspected the factory of Vaishnav ice -candy of the petitioner and took sample of ice -candy for examination and on chemical examination from the analyst, the same was found adulterated and petitioner was given notice and ultimately the case was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. The learned trial court, thereafter, framed charge under Sections 7/16 and 50(i) r/w Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the petitioner to which petitioner denied and claimed for trial. To substantiate the charge, after examining complainant Jagdish Vyash (PW -1), he closed his evidence. Thereafter, petitioner -accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. wherein he stated the prosecution case is false and he failed to lead any evidence in defence even after availing opportunity.
(3.) THE learned trial court, after hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioner -accused, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid vide judgment dated 02.11.1995. Aggrieved by this Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner -accused preferred appeal before the learned appellate court which was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.01.1996 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court was affirmed. Hence, this revision petition.;