G.R.MOOLCHANDANI,J. - (1.) This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of Special Judge, SC/ST Act passed in Criminal Appeal No. 25/1997 (13/96) on 19.2.1998 upholding the judgment of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta in Criminal Case No. 24/1989 dated 27.5.1996 convicting the revisionist-petitioner under Section 7/16 of P.F. Act and sentencing him to undergo one year's simple imprisonment and fine, of Rs. 2,000/-.
(2.) The prosecution case is that 7.8.1988, Food Inspector, Champa Lal checked kirana shop of M/s Ratan Lal Girdhari Lal and purchased Til oil (sesame oil) as sample for chemical examination after informing that the said oil was being purchased for the purpose of analysis. Til oil so obtained was found to be adulterated as such after obtaining necessary consent, a complaint was, filed against the accused-revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of Food Adulteration, Act Learned ACJM passed conviction order sentencing the accused-revisionist under Section 7/16 of P.F. Act and awarded sentence to undergo one year's S.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- vide, its order dated 27.5.1996 which was confirmed and upheld by the judgment impugned by Special Judge, SC/ST Act in Criminal appeal No. 25/1997 (13/96) on 19.2.1998.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-revisionist has submitted that the samples were not properly covered from outside and instead of a single sample, three samples were separately taken in three phials. More over, the sample was not made homogeneous and there is no evidence with respect to the cleanliness and dryness of the bottles. Learned counsel has further pleaded 'that the prosecution has not complied with Rule 4(3) read with Rule 18, and the copy of the memorandum and impression of the seal have not separately been transmitted to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst was supplied after a lapse of two years hence the sanctity of getting the sample re-examined virtually frustrated because iapse of two years rendered the sample not worthy to be re-examined. Prosecution has also failed to establish that the alleged commodity was kept for vending since mere possession does not attract any infringement of law. He has further submitted while referring the evidence of PW. 1 and PW.3 hat notice was also not given to an appropriate person. Son of the revisionist was shown to be operating the shop but the revisionist was sub-sequently served with the notice. He has also submitted that the re-examination of the sample which is an important right of the revisionist could be availed by applying in the Court and by that time the sample was not in a position to be re-examined. Learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments:- (i)State of Maharashtra v. Shri Suryabhan Ukarda Rokade dated 4th July, 2012 by Bombay High Court; (ii)Municipal Board, Deoli v. Hemchand and Ors. Decided on 3.7.1989 reported in RCC Oct, 1989 ; (iii)State of Rajasthan v. Narain reported in 1999 (2) RCD 935 (Raj) ; (iv)State of Rajasthan v. Prabhu Dayal and Anr. 1999 (2) RCD 1170 (Raj) ; (v)State of Rajasthan v. Naresh Chand reported in 1988 2 RW (Raj) 187 ; (vi)Rupak Kumar v. State of Bihah and . Anr reported in 2014 Past CrC (SC) 126 ; (vii)State of Rajasthan v. Ramji Lal and Ors. reported in RCC Jan, 1992 (viii)Leela Devi and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr reported in 2012 CrLJ 4085 ; (ix)Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah v. C.C. Jani and Anr. reported in 2009 (4) BBCJ(SC) 305 ; (x)M/s Shri Hari Oil Industries (Hart Oil Mill) and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (in S.B. Crl. Misc Petition No. 428/2013) decided on 4.12.2014 ; (xi)State of Rajasthan v. Mohammad Muslim Tagala reported in 2015 CrLJ 252 ; (xii) Abdul Mazid v. State' or Rajasthan, reported in 1996 CrLR (Raj) 508 ; and (xiii)S.M. Milkosh Limited v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2006 CrLJ 1976 . Learned counsel has also submitted that the findings of the learned Lower Court are maintainable and deserve to be quashed and the revision petition be allowed and the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside and in event of upholding the conviction, the appellant be released on undergone. Since the accused is; more, than 80 years and he trial has already taken about 28 Years. ;