M.C.Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS Cr. Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C., by the petitioner against the judgment dated 21 -6 -2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Alwar, in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2010, whereby he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 4 -3 -2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar in Cr. Case No. 23/198/2005 whereby the accused petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under: - - "U/S. 7(III)/16(1)(A)(1) R/W S. 50 of the P.F.A. Act; one month simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of payment of fine, further 03 days additional simple imprisonment. "U/S. 7(I)/16(1)(A)(1) of PFA Act; 06 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, in default of payment of fine, further 15 days additional simple imprisonment." Brief facts of the case are as under: On 16 -7 -1996 the complainant Kunj Bihari Bhardwaj, Food Inspector submitted a complaint in the Court of learned ACJM No. 2, Alwar, stating therein that the complainant is the Food Inspector, appointed by the State Government, on 13 -4 -1996 at about 8.30 a.m. reached at Ambedkar Chauraha, Alwar, there he met with the accused who was having two iron tanks containing 50 liters of milk for the purpose of selling on a Rajdoot Motorcycle. The complainant asked for the license from the accused petitioner of selling milk, the accused was not possessing the said license. On making inspection, in one tank, containing 28 liters milk, seems to be adulterated.
(2.) ON which, an information was given to the accused petitioner in the Form No. 6 for taking the sample and after duly mixing the milk, 750 grams milk was purchased in a sum of Rs. 7.50 and the sample was taken and further proceedings were initiated against the accused and in the report, the milk was found to be adulterated. On which prosecution sanction was taken from the competent Officer. Thus, the accused petitioner has committed offence u/s. 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act. On submitting the complaint, pre -charge evidence was taken. The trial Court after hearing the arguments, framed the charge against the accused petitioner. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
(3.) DURING the course of trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and after completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313, Cr.P.C. in which he denied the prosecution case. The trial Court after hearing the arguments, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred, who had confirmed the said order of conviction and sentence.;