Dilshad vs State of Uttaranchal

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that none turned up on behalf of revisionist upto 04. p.m., even the case has been called several times on repeated revised calls since morning. It is also significant to mention that on 24.06.2011 as well as 20.07.2011, the request was made by learned Advocate on behalf of revisionist for adjournment and the same was granted but even then none has been turned up today. So this Court has gone up on the grounds of revision as well as heard learned Brief holder for the State/Respondent No. 2.

This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 26.08.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2000 Dilshad v. State, whereby the order of conviction of the Appellant/revisionist Dilshad in criminal complaint case No. 533 of 1999 was sustained for the offence u/s 7/16 Prevention of Food Alteration Act and he was sentenced to undergo six months'' rigorous imprisonment besides one thousand fine.

The grounds of revision raised by Dilshad are very fickle and stereotype. There is No. substance in these grounds because No. specific irregularity or illegality has been pointed out either in the four grounds mentioned in the revision. Simply saying that order passed by trial court and appellate court is too severe and excessive is not enough. Other grounds are that it is against the weight of evidence on record and is bad in the eyes of law and it is also passed without proper application of mind: these are very vague grounds. Fourth and last ground is that appellate court has not considered the compliance of mandatory provisions of the Act, but nowhere it has been indicated as to what mandatory provision has not been complied with.

I have gone through the record of the case and found that the Food Inspector after complying the necessary requirements as envisaged under the Act, has taken the sample of contaminated milk and has sent the same for chemical analysis, that was found to be adulterated. The Magistrate has recorded his findings after due analysis and appreciation of facts. There is No. fault either apparent or hidden in the findings of the Magistrate as well as Appellate Court. The revision is quite meritless and is liable to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed.

Let the lower court record be sent forthwith for serving out the sentence by accused Dilshad.