Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Santoshkumar Ramchandra Rathi, was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wardha, on 17.9.1999 in Regular Criminal Case No.210 of 1993 for offences punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and a fine of Rs.1000, with default imprisonment of 1 month. The conviction arose from the sale of adulterated groundnut oil. The applicant appealed to the Sessions Court, Wardha, which dismissed his appeal (Criminal Appeal No.30 of 1999) on 10.3.2005, affirming the conviction and sentence. The applicant then filed the present criminal revision application before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court noted that none appeared for the applicant, while the State was represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor. The court observed that the revision application challenged concurrent findings of fact. The court held that in revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it cannot reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or illegal. Since the courts below had properly appreciated the evidence and recorded concurrent findings, there was no ground to interfere. The revision application was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Scope of Interference - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 397 - The revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence and interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the findings are perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence. The court upheld the conviction as the findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The criminal revision application is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wardha on 17.9.1999 in Regular Criminal Case No.210 of 1993, as affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Wardha on 10.3.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 1999, are upheld.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revision unless perverse or illegal
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Section 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii)
- Conviction for adulterated food
