I.A. Ansari, J.

1. With the help of this criminal revision, the petitioner has put to challenge the judgment and order, dated 29.05.2004, passed, in Criminal Appeal No. 11(1)/03, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, has upheld the judgment and order, dated 19.02.2003, passed, in CR Case No. 311/ 2004, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, convicting the accused appellant under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PFA Act') and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of 2(two) months. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. I have heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner, and Mr. K. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. Before entering into the merit of this revision, let me take note of the case of the prosecution. The prosecution's case, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as follows: On 10.11.2000, a Food Inspector (PW1), accompanied by his Office Peon (PW2), visited the sweetmeat shop of the accused-appellant, which was run under the name and style of M/s Annapurna Mistanna Bhander, and, upon serving notice on the accused petitioner, in Form No. VI, PW1 purchased 300 grams of Bundia by making payment of Rs.18/- only and sent, in course of time, one of the samples of the Bundia, so purchased, to the Public Analyst, Assam, for analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the sample, in question, was 'artificially coloured' and the same was, therefore, adulterated. On obtaining sanction for prosecution from the Local (Health) Authority, the Food Inspector (PW1) made a complaint, in writing, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, seeking prosecution of the accused-petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the PFA Act.

3. At the trial, when a charge, under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the PFA Act, was framed against the accused-petitioner, the accused-petitioner pleaded not guilty thereto.

4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether two witnesses, namely, the Food Inspector (PW1) and his Office Peon (PW2). The accused-petitioner was, then, examined under Section 313 CrPC and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused-petitioner denied to have committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being, inter alia, that no notice, as provided in Section 13(2) of the PFA Act, had been received by the accused-petitioner informing him that he would be at liberty to get one of the samples of Bundia, which had been purchased by the Food Inspector from his shop, analysed by the Central Food Laboratory by making an application, in this regard, to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report by him (i.e., the accused petitioner).

5. In support of its case, the defence also adduced evidence by examining two witnesses, including the present accused-petitioner, who, in his evidence, too, denied receipt of any notice from the Local (Health) Authority in terms of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the PFA Act.

6. Having, however, found the accused-petitioner guilty of the offence charged with, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal. Since the appeal, as indicated above, stands dismissed, the accused-petitioner is, now, before this Court with this revision.

7. At the time of hearing of this revision, it has been pointed out by Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, that it was the specific case of the accused-petitioner that he had not received any notice, as provided by Section 13(2) of the PFA