ORDER

1. The present revision petition under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.8.2022 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in Criminal Appeal No. 62/2017 confirming the judgment of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Datia in Criminal Case No. 732/2009 whereby petitioner has been convicted as under:

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that in a surprise visit, on 13.1.2009 at around 4:30 pm, Food Inspector inspected edible product (pure Ghee) of Gopal Kirana Store, Badoni District Datia and present petitioner found at the said firm. In presence of witnesses and after observing all the formalities, samples were collected. Thereafter sealed. Out of them, one sample was sent for examination to the State Food Laboratory, Bhopal. Thereafter, on receiving the report, complaint was preferred under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the competent Court of law.

3. Before the trial Court -Judicial Magistrate First Class, Datia, petitioner abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. Prosecution examined its witnesses in support of its case. After recording of evidence ocular as well as documentary and hearing the submission of counsel for the parties, trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as referred above.

4. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court has been challenged by the petitioner by preferring criminal appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner for the offence referred above. Vinay Gupta (PW-1) did not support the story of prosecution and he even denied collecting of samples from petitioner's shop. It is further submitted that the seized articles were not manufactured by the petitioner, it was Riddhi Siddhi Food Products which manufactured the said food article and he was only selling the said product but the said company was not implicated in the present matter. In relation to location of place of shop of petitioner also, inconsistency crept into the documents of prosecution.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case in hand compliance as required under section 13(2) of the Act and rule 9B of the 4 Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) have not been made by the prosecution in relation to sending the report to the concerned person (here petitioner) within ten days from the date of filing of complaint in order to provide an opportunity to the person concerned to get the sample examined by Central Food Laboratory. Thus, the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the Courts below deserves to be set aside and petitioner deserves acquittal.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of petition.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. From perusal of impugned judgments passed by the Courts below and record it appears that following dates and events were material in the facts and circumstances of the case: