ORDER :

The revision petition is filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgments in Crl.A.No.845/2010 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-I), Thrissur (Appellate Court) and C.C. No.88/2004 of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur(Trial Court), finding the revision petitioner guilty for the offences under Section 7(iii) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and read with Rule 50 of the PFA Rules(in short, ‘Act & Rules). The revision petitioner was the accused and the second respondent was the complainant before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

Prosecution case in brief:

2. On 25.09.2003, the first respondent/ complainant purchased 1½ Kgs of coconut oil from the shop owned by the accused. On an analysis of the sample, by Ext P12 Form III report of the Public Analyst, it was found that the sample was adulterated, because it did not confirm to the standards prescribed under the PFA Rules. The complainant further found that the samples were not labelled and sealed, as contemplated under the PFA Rul