THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 4 of 2009 ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused Nos.5 and 6 in C.C.No.35 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, who were convicted for the offence under Section 2(ia) read with Section 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and to undergo sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months for each offence and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each against the accused No.5 and imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/- on each counts against the accused No.6. The said conviction was challenged in Criminal Appeal Nos.23 and 24 of 2007 before the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and both the appeals were dismissed confirming the conviction of the appellants herein. This revision case is filed against the said common judgment dated 31.12.2008. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.07.2000 at 4.00 p.m., P.W.1 along with P.W.2 visited the shop of A-1 at Cheerala of Prakasam District and purchased some vanaspathi, which was said to have been stored and thereafter the samples were sent for analysis and the analyst opined that it is adulterated. A-5 represented that he is the nominee of the A-6 firm. The lower Court after considering the evidence on record, found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences and the same sentences had been confirmed by the lower appellate Court. The point that arises for consideration is: Whether the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioners is legal and sustainable? POINT: From the material available on record and from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that the vanaspathi was purchased from the shop of A-1 and from the material found on record it is quite clear that the said vanaspathi was supplied by A-6 through the agent and nominee A-5. The said vanaspathi was said to have been adulterated. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below based on analyst’s opinion and also the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, is concurrent and there are no infirmities in appreciating the evidence. The samples were said to have been supplied by A-4 to P.W.1 in a sealed cover and as per the statement of A-4 and the invoice of Ex.P- 16 submitted by him, the article was manufactured by A-6 and it was distributed to A-4. Therefore, from the material evidence on record, it is quite clear that there was sale of adulterated vanaspathi and consequently the conviction and sentence cannot be challenged. However, it is also brought to the notice of this court that A-5, who was representing as nominee of A-6 has already served the sentence of imprisonment as he was sent to jail on 23.04.2009 and subsequently released on 24.09.2009 after serving the sentence. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 11-11-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 4 of 2009 Date: 11-11-2011 MR