Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.12.1987 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar passed in Crl. Appeal No. 85/1987 arising out of Case No. 1071/1985 under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short P.F.A. Act), P.S. Bidhnoo, district Kanpur Nagar whereby the said criminal appeal was dismissed.

2. This criminal revision is very old yet none appeared on behalf of revisionist. This Court on 23.7.2013 passed the following orders :

“Sri Rajesh Ji Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist is in a habit of sending illness slip regularly in this revision filed in the year 1987 and he is not ready to argue this revision since last 25 years. The revisionist was convicted and sentenced under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appeal filed against conviction was dismissed and the revision is pending since last 25 years. Lower Court record is annexed with the file of the revision.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has sent illness slip today again which is accepted for today on the condition that in future, no adjournment shall be granted at any cost even on the illness slip or any other ground of the learned counsel for the revisionist. List peremptorily on 26.8.2013.”

3. Despite the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the revisionist did not not appear on the date fixed. Revision was listed peremptorily. Lower Court record is available. Therefore, the Court is constrained to decide the criminal revision with the help of learned A.G.A.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.3.1985 about about 11:30 am. on Hamirpur Road in front of Primary Health Centre Bidhnoo, revisionist Gannu Yadav was found selling mixed milk of cow, buffalo and goat. He was carrying milk in drums on his cycle for the purpose of sale. The Food Inspector took the sample of that milk on the payment of requisite fee in accordance with the prevailing rules. The sample of mixed milk was divided in two parts. Formalin was added and after performing the requisite duties, the sample was sent to public analyst for test. The report of public analyst concluded that the milk sample is adulterated as milk fat and non-fat-solids were found deficient in comparison to the prescribed standard. A complaint was lodged under Section 7/16 PFA Act. The prosecution and defence evidence was recorded and trial Court found revisionist, Gannu Yadav guilty of offence under Section 7 (1) 16 (1) (A) (1) of PFA Act and was, accordingly, convicted and sentenced for a rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. An appeal filed against the said order was dismissed on 10.12.1987. Aggrieved, present revision has been filed.

5. It is settled position of law that High Court will exercise its revisional power where there is a material error or defect in law or procedure, misconception or misreading of evidence, failure to exercise or wrong exercise of jurisdiction or where the facts admitted or proved do not disclose any offence.

6. As a broad proposition, the interference may be justified (a) where the decision is grossly erroneous; (b) where there is no compliance with the provisions of law; (c) where the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on the evidence; (d) where the material evidence of the parties has not been considered; and (e) where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

7. In exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, it will be beyond its power and jurisdiction to re-assess the evidence. Appraisal of the evidence is not permissible in revision petition. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Kerala v. Putthumana ILLath Jathavedan Namboodiri,” AIR 1999 SC 981, has held that the High Court while hearing revisions does not work as an Appellate Court and will not re-appreciate the evidence, unless some glaring feature is pointed out which may show that injustice has been done.