MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, J. - (1.) S .B. Cr. Revision Petition against the Order dated 30.10.1999 passed by the Special Judge, (Communal riots/Man Singh Hatyakand), Jaipur in Cr. Appeal No. 95/99 whereby he confirmed the judgment dated 8.3.95 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 799/88 by which the petitioner has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has been sentenced to 1 year's simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") 1954 on the ground that, on 23.4.88, one Sh K.C. Verma P.W.1 the Food Inspector has taken a sample of Dhaniya which was found to be adulterated. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur convicted the petitioner as aforesaid vide his order dated 8.3.1995, against which, he filed an appeal before the Special Judge, (Communal riots/Man Singh Hatyakand), Jaipur who vide his order dated 30.10.99 confirmed the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and orders passed by both the court below, the petitioner prefers the present revision petition before this Court. In this revision petition, Mr. O.P. Mishra Advocate for Mr. M.M. Ranjan Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the appeal filed by the petitioner decided by the appellate court was in his absence. According to him, a criminal appeal cannot be decided without hearing of appellant. No amicus curiae was appointed at the time of hearing of the appellant. He has further contended that P.W.1, Sh. K.C. Sharma was not competent to take sample from the shop of the petitioner because a notification was issued by the Govt. of Rajasthan Ex. EA in which name of P.W.1 Sh. K.C. Sharma was not found. Ultimately, he has prayed that the matter should be decided in the light of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, reported in 1998(4) RCR(Criminal) 248 : (1997)9 SCC 101 : RLW 1996(1) SC 15 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in Para No. 3 of its judgment as under : "The offence took place in the year 1984. The appellant has been awarded six months' simple imprisonment and has also been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "the appropriate government" is empowered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine, We think that this would be an appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalize the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
(3.) MR . B.N. Sandhu Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner.;