Point of Law : Court do not find any perversity, illegality or error in the impugned judgments warranting any interference at hands of this Court. [Para 25]

ORDER :

1. The present petitioner was accused in Criminal Case No. 1022/2008, in the Court of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Sakaleshpura, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial Court”) who, by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 20-06-2016 of the Trial Court, was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7(i), 7(ii) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Act”) and was sentenced accordingly.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 138/2016, in the Court of the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge at Hassan (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “the Sessions Judge’s Court”), which, after hearing both side, dismissed the appeal, by confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court. It is challenging the judgments passed by both the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge’s Court, the accused/petitioner herein has preferred the present revision petition.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant as mentioned in his complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) was that, on the date 20-06-2008, the complainant, as a Food Inspector, while on his duty at Azad Road, Sakaleshpura, at about 5:00 p.m. visited a Shop by name M/s. Select Coffee Works and inspected the coffee seeds and its powder which were meant for public sale and noticed that the accused had stored and was selling misbranded and adulterated coffee powder in his Shop. The complainant, who was accompanied with his staff, purchased 600 grams of coffee powder and subjected them for scientific analysis and through the report from the Analyst, confirmed that the coffee power was adulterated and misbranded as it was found that the caffeine content in it was 0.4% and aqueous extract was 55.0% and that it was also misbranded by virtue of nonprinting of batch number and ‘best before’ on it. Hence, the complainant alleged that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 7(i) and 7(ii) and 16(a)(i) of the Act.

3. The accused appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter through his counsel. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined four (04) witnesses from PW-1 to PW-4, got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-16 and produced two Material Objects (coffee powder packets) as MO-1 and MO-2. However, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked on behalf of the accused.

4. The respondent-State is being represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader.

5. The Trial Court and the learned Sessions Judge’s Court’s records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State are physically appearing in the Court.

7. Heard the learned counsels from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts and also the Trial Court and learned Sessions Judge’s Court’s records.

8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

9. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is:

Whether the impugned judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Judge’s Court holding the accused (petitioner herein) guilty for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7(i), 7(ii) read with Section 16(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?

10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in his argument, canvassed mainly