The appellant faced trial.
An appeal was carried and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 1999, dismissed the same holding that the offence was made out.
He had sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ with default stipulations.
As numbered above, a revision petition was filed before the High Court which was dismissed summarily.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows On 27.11.1984, the Food Inspector purchased a sample of Khoya from the appellant.
The Public Analyst found that the milk fat of the finished product was 19.07 as against the minimum prescribed standard of 20.
The appellant filed criminal revision which was dismissed, as numbered above.
The appellant exercised his right under Section 13 2 of the Act.
A stand was taken before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that in view of several decisions of this Court, there should be companymutation of sentence.
As numbered above, the Metropolitan Magistrate companyvicted the appellant and sentenced him.
P.C. was a matter within the discretion of State Government.
The appeal filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, was dismissed.
The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi had found the accused appellant guilty of offences punishable under Section 7 1 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in short the Act .
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision petition filed by the appellant.
