Result: Petition dismissed.

K. Ramanna, J.

The petitioner-accused filed this Revision petition under Sees. 397 and 401 Cr. P. C., challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mysore in C. C. No. 79/1988 for the offence punishable under Sec. 16(i) of PFA Act and the said order of conviction has been affirmed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysore S in Crl. A. 115/1992, dismissing the appeal.

2. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has come up with this Criminal Revision Petition mainly on the ground that the Court below has committed a grave error in placing total reliance and absolute faith on g the sole evidence of P.W.1 the Health and Food Inspector who is naturally an interested person and whose sole aim and object is succeed in the prosecution. Instead of drawing adverse inference for not examining any one of the two Mahazar witnesses alleged to have been present, the Court below as come to a wrong conclusion that P.W.1 is not an interested witness and there is difference of opinion offered in the report of the Public Analyst and Central Food Laboratory, Pune. The Court below without extending the benefit of doubt, by believing the report at Ex. P-14 has wrongly come to the conclusion in convicting the petitioner. The evidence of P.W.1 fully contradicts with regard to the obtaining of cash bill and receipt for the alleged purchase of butter and the Court below failed to notice the report of the public Analyst, Bangalore and Ex. P7 was sent beyond the time limit prescribed under Sub. Rule 3 of Rule 7 of PFA Rules. There is enormous delay in sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory, Pone. Hence this revision petition.

3. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Geetha Devi for Respondent and learned High Court Government Pleader for the Respondent-State.

4. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is the owner of Shop Nos. 65 and 66 of Devaraja Market, Mysore. On 6-11-1987 P.W.1 Food Inspector attached to the City Corporation Mysore, visited the shop of the accused at about 5 p.m. and purchased 450 grams of butter which was kept for sale in the shop of the accused. According to’ the respondent Counsel, 450 grams butter purchased by P.W.1 from the petitioner was divided into three parts and sealed. A mahazar was prepared in the shop of the accused and one part of the same was sent as sample to the public analyst for examination. To that effect Panchanama Ex. P3 has been drawn. According to the Counsel for the petitioner the opinion of the public Analyst as per Ex. P-7 is contrary to the report given by the Central Food Laboratory Pune as per Ex. P-14. Where there is difference of opinion in regard to the contents of butter sent for analysis, the Court ought to have given benefit of doubt to the petitioner. No such benefit was given to him and the Food Inspector P. W. 1 has not followed the mandatory provisions and procedures while seizing the butter at mahazar Ex. P-3. There is no proof that the butter purchased from the shop of the petitioner was adulterated. Petitioner is a retailer and he purchased butter packets from the manufacturer and without filing complaint against the manufacture a false case is filed against the petitioner. P.W. 1 has not produced the receipt for having purchased butter from the shop of the petitioner which discloses that the alleged butter was not purchased by P.W. 1 from the shop of the petitioner. The trial Court has not properly considered the evidence on record. There are major contradictions in the evidence of P. W. 1, since P. W. 1 is an interested person and his evidence has not been corroborated by independent panch witness to show that the very butter had been purchased from the shop of the petitioner after following the mandatory provisions. There is a delay of more than 45 days in the receipt of Ex. p 7. There is difference of opinion with regard to the alleged adulteration o