IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the application of legal provisions related to evidence, presumption, and the applicability of amended laws to the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1995 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2005.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.11.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror, District Alwar in Criminal Appeal No.50/2005, as well as against the judgment dated 10.12.1999 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Behror, District Alwar in Criminal Case No.97/96, whereby the revisionist-petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to six months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Food Inspector -Shri SD Sharma filed a compliant alleging that he made an inspection on 22.04.1995 at 7.30 AM in presence of the witnesses and found Kartar Singh, petitioner, was selling cow milk. On suspicion of adulteration, he took sample of milk and sent the same to the Public Analyst for testing, wherein the milk was found adulterated. After obtaining prosecution sanction from Local (Health) Authority, Alwar, complaint was filed against the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint, a cognizance for the offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act of 1954") was taken and proceedings were initiated. In the proceedings, the petitioner denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In the statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied for the prosecution allegation and stated that he never remained in the business of selling milk. It is also stated that due to enmity, the witnesses named him. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court passed the judgment dated 10.12.1999 and convicted & sentenced the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.1999, passed by learned trial Court, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court, based on the material and evidence available before it, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and maintained the conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below erred in passing the orders. He submits that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the material and evidence available on record. He further submits that the Courts below have not considered the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he is not indulged in business of selling milk.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the Courts below have not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 78 of Evidence Act, as the documents, produced before the Courts below, were photocopy and not the original one. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not affording opportunity of hearing.

6. Learned counsel submits that there is an inordinate delay in filing complaint. He submits that the Courts below did not consider that provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 have not been complied with. He further submits that the Courts below failed to consider that all the independent witnesses, produced by the prosecution, were declared hostile, as they did not support the prosecution case. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the orders dated 28.11.2005 and 10.12.1999 may be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. In Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander & Ors. [(2012) 9 SCC 460], the Apex Court was considering the scope of powers granted under Section 397 of the High Court and in paragraphs 8 of the said judgment