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 man