ORDER :

1. This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying this Court to set aside the judgment passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppa dated 24.04.2013 in C.C.No.451/2008 and also set aside the judgment dated 09.11.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.233/2013 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru and acquit the revision petitioner for the offences alleged against him and grant such other relief as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the Food Inspector, Koppa has visited the shop belonging to the accused No.1-M. Umar on 16.02.2008 situate at Koppa and inspected the food articles and examined 20 packs each containing 200 miligrams of sungift refined cooking oil and found that there is adulteration in the said oil and noticed that the said oil was supplied by the revision petitioner and filed the complaint against the accused persons stating that they have violated Section 7(2) of the Prevision of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('the Act' for short) and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 16(a)(i) of the said Act.

3. Based on the complaint, cognizance was taken against this revision petitioner and accused No.1 and both of them not pleaded guilty. Hence, the prosecution, in order to prove their case, examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and relied upon the documents Exs.P1 to P13(a) and two memo of objects were marked as M.Os.1 and 2 containing sungift refined cooking oil.

4. The Trial Court, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted both the accused and imposed sentence of fine of Rs.4,000/- each, failing which they are liable to serve the sentence of simple imprisonment for seven months. The accused No.1 paid the fine amount and the prosecution also challenged the inadequate sentence and filed appeal in Criminal Appeal No.233/2013 and the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and imposed sentence of six months vide judgment dated 09.11.2016. Hence, the revision petitioner-accused No.2 has filed this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that, admittedly, the charge was framed against the accused persons only to the effect that they have dealt with adulterated oil and the samples were sent to the laboratory for examination. The report do not indicate that the oil is adulterated and the same is with regard to misbranding which is also without jurisdiction and both the framing of charge as also the report is bad in law.

6. The counsel would also contend that the Trial Court also have totally ignored the admission of the complainant in his cross-examination that he had not sent the same for verification of the brand and that there is no notice given to the accused persons seeking for their explanation on the allegation of branding. He also contend that no opportunity was given to answer the claim/allegation and it was alleged for the first time, when the samples were received with the opinion that the same is misbranded. He would also contend that the trial Judge grossly erred in not noticing the fact that there was no misbranding and no offence was committed by the revision petitioner and the trial Judge ought to have noticed that the witnesses admittedly admit that the samples sent for analysis is not adulterated. The oil that was manufactured and distributed was soybean oil and the branding was also soybean oil. Therefore, there could not have been any offence by the revision petitioner as alleged. The allegation of the prosecution that the images of sunflower is depicted on the packet though the oil sold is soybean and that the commodity - soybean oil is written in small fonts is not correct.

7. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the Court below ought to have noticed that the prosecution ought to have examined independent witnesses to establish that they were