CHAIRMAN SURI MUNICIPALITY Vs. SISIR KUMAR GHOSH
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CHAIRMAN SURI MUNICIPALITY
SISIR KUMAR GHOSH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS appeal by special leave is brought from an appellate order of acquittal made by the Sessions Judge of Birbhum. The respondent Sisir Kumar Ghosh was prosecuted by the Chairman of Suri Municipality before a Magistrate at Suri under section 7/16 (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The allegations were that the respondent was a dealer in chhana who used to bring it regularly from Murshidabad and sell it at Suri market. On the 4th May 1958, a Food Inspector of the Municipality took a sample of chhana from the respondent. The sample was taken outside the railway station. A quantity of 11/2 poa of chhana was purchased for the purpose of analysis and Rs. 1/2/-was paid as price. A receipt was given and the signature of the respondent was obtained on it. The sample was divided in three parts, labelled, sealed and packed in the presence of witnesses. On analysis the sample was found to be adulterated. The analyst reported that the sample contained 11. 92 p. c. of milk fat. The rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provide that chhana prepared from cow's milk or buffalo milk shall contain a minimum of 15 p. c. of milk fat. The sample was buffalo chhana. It was, accordingly, deficient in milk fat and, therefore, adulterated.
(2.) THE charge framed against the respondent read as follows:
"that you, on or about the 4th day of May, 1958 at Suri station having previous conviction again conveyed for sale adulterated chhana and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 7/16 (ii) of the Act XXXVII of 1954. " At the trial the Food Inspector who took the sample gave evidence to prove the circumstances in which the sample had been taken. There was also another witness Choton Lal by name, a Paniparah attached to the Suri railway station, who deposed in support of the charge brought.
(3.) THE respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence appears to be that he was not a dealer in chhana; he denied that any sample of chhana had been taken from him and suggested that he had been falsely implicated. In his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the respondent merely averred his innocence but admitted to have been convicted and sentenced on a previous occasion under section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.