JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.: - This order will dispose of above-stated three applications. 2. The applicants have filed the above-stated applications for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the revision petition. 3. Notice of motion was issued in the applications and learned counsel for respondent-C.B.I. appeared and contested the applications. 4. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the applicants argued that first of all in the present case, FIR has been registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and at the most from the allegations, there can be alleged violation of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that as per the allegations, only Beef tallow has been recovered from the premises of M/s Bathinda Chemicals and Banaspati Mills (for short ‘BCBM’) on the basis of anonymous complaint but as per the case of the prosecution itself, in the premises there is also a sister concern of BCBM, which prepares soap and Beef tallow was used in preparing the soap. Learned counsel for the applicants next argued that there is nothing in the evidence that BCBM manufactured Vanaspati Ghee from the Beef tallow nor any vegetable oil has been recovered from the spot in which the Beef tallow has been mixed. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that there is no documentary evidence on record to show that Beef tallow has been sold to any of the other accused by the BCBM. The statement of Approver has been mainly relied upon by the Court but even it is not proved that Approver has participated in the commission of the offence. Learned counsel for the applicants also argued that learned trial Court has correctly acquitted the accused and learned appellate Court has wrongly set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court by raising presumptions. They next argued that offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out there being no wrongful loss to anybody. The report of the FSL also does not prove the prosecution version beyond reasonable doubt. They further argued that so many FIRs have been registered in connected matters regarding same occurrence but in all the cases either FIRs have been quashed or the accused are discharged except this case. The report of the FSL also does not prove the prosecution version beyond reasonable doubt. They further argued that so many FIRs have been registered in connected matters regarding same occurrence but in all the cases either FIRs have been quashed or the accused are discharged except this case. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants argued that sentence of the applicants-petitioners should be suspended. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- C.B.I. argued that as per the record, the findings given by learned appellate Court are correct and as per law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 7. From the record, I find that there are so many arguable points in the present revision as argued by learned counsel for the applicants. Applicants have already been acquitted by learned trial Court and it is in the appeal, they have been convicted. There being arguable points, the revision petitions have already been admitted by this Court. The decisions of the revision petitions will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the present applicants in custody and if their sentence is not suspended, then the applicants will complete their sentence and their revision petitions will become infructuous. 8. Without discussing the merits of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case at this stage, I find that these are arguable points; whether the applicants can be tried under Section 420 IPC or whether the applicants, can be tried under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It is also arguable that whether reliance can be placed on the statement of the Approver. It is further arguable that whether the Court can raise presumptions that Beef tallow which was purchased in huge quantity, was to be used in the vegetable oil. It is also arguable point whether the recovery of Beef tallow from other persons can be connected with the BCBM without any documentary evidence. 9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find merit in all the applications for suspension of sentence and the same are allowed. It is also arguable point whether the recovery of Beef tallow from other persons can be connected with the BCBM without any documentary evidence. 9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find merit in all the applications for suspension of sentence and the same are allowed. The applicants are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Patiala/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Patiala. 10. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————