V. H. BHAIRAVIA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision Application has been directed by the petitioner-accused against the judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions judge, Kheda at Nadiad, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1980 on 9- 9-1981 confirming the order of conviction passed by the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Nadiad on 9-10-1980 in Cri. Case No. 769 of 1979 and modifying the order of sentence by allowing the appeal partly. By the order of the learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad, the petitioner has been held guilty for the offences under Secs. 7 (1) (3) (5) read with Secs. 16 (A) (i) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the petitioneraccused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500. 00, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. In appeal, the order of sentence has been modified by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad and the petitioner-accused was ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months instead of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 instead of fine of Rs. 1500. 00, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months instead of three months.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case in short is that on 26-3-1979 at about 4. 45 p. m. , the petitioner-accused was selling milk to the customers near Shahid smarak, Mission Road, Nadiad. At that time, the Food Inspector Shri Hiralal b. Panchal of Nadiad Municipality came there and purchased 660 gms. of sample milk from the petitioner and paid the price of the milk to the petitioner and obtained a receipt of payment. He divided the sample milk into three equal parts in the presence of panchas and after completing formalities, he sent the sample to the Public Analyst at Baroda for analysis. On receiving the report of the Public Analyst, it was found that the sample milk was sub-standard milk having less fat falling within the meaning of "adulterated milk". On the strength of this report, after obtaining necessary sanction under Sec. 20 of the Act from the Competent Authority, the Food Inspector lodged a complaint in the Court of the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Nadiad against the petitioner-accused for the offences alleged to have been committed under Secs. 7 (1) (3) (5) read with Secs. 16 (A) (i) (ii) of the Act. The said complaint was registered as Criminal Case no. 769 of 1979 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner-accused took the plea of defence under Sec. 19 (2) of the Act, but it was not accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. On appreciation of the prosecution evidence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held the petitioner-accused guilty for the alleged offences. The petitioner-accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment as stated above by his judgment and order dated 9-10-1980. The impugned judgment and order of the learned Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner-accused in the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad in appeal being criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1980. The appeal was partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner-accused was confirmed but the order of sentence was set aside and modified as stated above by the learned Addl. Sessions judge, Nadiad by his impugned judgment and order dated 9-9-1981.

( 3 ) BY invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 401 of the Cr. P. Code, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction as it is patently illegal and apparently erroneous on the face of record which has resulted into gross miscarriage of justice.

( 4 ) THE object and purpose of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is to eliminate the danger to the human life and health from the sale of the adulterated food. Adulteration of food is a menace to public health. The Act has been enact

Click Here to Read the rest of this document