( 1 ) THIS Revision Application is preferred by the petitioner challenging two decisions, one holding the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) r/w. Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 11th March. 1998 and another decision dated 13th october. 2000 given by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad city, dismissing the Criminal Appeal of the petitioner and confirming the order of conviction dated llth March. 1998 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Court No. 6. Ahmedabad. in Criminal Case no. 94/1989.

( 2 ) MR. PARDIWALA learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K. B. Anandjiwala for the petitioner has taken me through all the relevant facts including the method adopted by CFL in recording findings as to use of equipment in analysing the sample i. e. use of microscope, though there is no such provision in the relevant Rules, that may probably lead this Court to any other or different approach. The first legal submission made before this Court by mr. Pardiwala is that both the lower Courts have failed to consider the plea of the petitioner accused as