ORDER :

This criminal revision case has been preferred by these petitioners against the Judgment, dated 20.10.2016 in C.A.No. 35 of 2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai, confirming the Judgment, dated 23.06.2015 in S.T.C.No.1710 of 2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the trial Court failed to note that the respondent has not given any particulars about the quality and quantity of the contraband and the respondent has not followed the procedure during the preparation of seizure mahazar. He would further submit that the trial Court had deliberately failed to procure reliable and credible evidence of independent persons as the alleged occurrence has taken place. He would further submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the occurrence as alleged and therefore, he prays to allow the Criminal Revision Case.

3. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent that the second petitioner herein stated that his product Sri Vinayagar Sarbath Nannari was failed to agitate before the designated officer, that the above product was not his manufacture product of the sample taken by the Food Safety Officer. On receipt of the notice form of the intimation of lab report (Ex.P.14 in S.T.C.No.1710 of 2014) send by the Designated officer for any agitate in the food lab result Form VIIA of Madurai. It is further stated that the trial Court note that in Ex.P.11, the name of proprietor is mentioned for that above said sample as N.Somasundaram S/o.Nagarajan in their Registration certificate obtained from Tamilnadu Food Safety and Drug administration department. In the Food Safety Standards and Act, 2006, Section 3.1(zd) mentioned manufacture means a person engaged in the business of manufacturing any article of food for sale and includes any person who obtains such article from another person and packs and labels it for sale or only labels it for such purposes. It is further stated that, further the second petitioner has not agitate the same subjection matter during the trial in the Judicial Magistrate Court by adduced evidence to contradict the Food Safety Officers Statements and prove his innocence. It is further stated that the petitioners/accused/appellants had not raised the false label issue in both trial Court and Sessions Court.

4. Heard on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

5. The revision petitioners were charged for an offences under Section 51, 52, 59(1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, each, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 ½ month, each, for the offence under Section 59(1) of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, by the Judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, dated, 23.06.2015 in S.T.C.No.1710 of 2014. Against the said Judgment, dated 23.06.2015 an appeal was preferred by these petitioners in C.A. No.35 of 2015 before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai. The appellate Court has modified the conviction and passed sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months, each, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 ½ month, each. Aggrieved over the said Judgment, the petitioners are before this Court by way of filing the Criminal Revision Case.

6. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is running a Grocery Shop in the name and style of Arojai Maligai near Sarugani Bus Stand. On 24.02.2014, the respondent made a surprise visit to the first petitioner's grocery shop and conducted an exploration. During the search the first petitioner was found in possession of 750m.l., bottles of misbranded Nannari Syrub in the name of “Sri Vinayaga Sarpath (Nannari)” for retail sale to the public and customers. More over