- (1.) The present revisional application is directed against an order dated 27-4-1982 passed by the learned Senior Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta in Case No. 504-D of 1974 thereby framing charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the petitioners.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the Food Inspector inspected the business premises of M/s. Tea King at 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Calcutta on 29-8-1974 and found 'Tea' stored and exposed for sale for human consumption. He purchased sample of tea from Judhisthir Agarwalla after complying with legal formalities. The sample was sent to Public Analyst, who on analysis opined the sample to be adulterated. Thereafter the petition of complaint was filed against four persons. Prosecution examined witnesses and they were also cross-examined before charge. Charge was framed against accused M/s. Tea King and one J. Agarwalla under S. 16(1)(a)(i) read with S. 7(i) of P.F.A. Act. When the case was fixed for cross-examination of the P.Ws. after charge, the accused-Judhisthir Agarwalla filed an application with a prayer that the present petitioners, namely M/s. Ganeshbari Tea Co. (P) Ltd. might be impleaded as accused in the case in view of the provision of S. 20-A of the P.F.A. Act. The application was allowed and the present petitioners appeared before the learned Magistrate on 31-5-1977. On 15-2-1982 the prosecution examined three witnesses including the complainant, i.e., Food Inspector and the sample witnesses in presence of the accused-petitioners. P.W. 1 was also recalled for further evidence.
(3.) It was contended on behalf of the principal accused persons that they would not be liable for prosecution because the 'Tea' exposed for sale for human consumption, which was seized from M/s. Tea King, was manufactured by M/s. Ganeshbari Tea Co. (P) Ltd. and was sold to them as per Bill and Invoice. Such contention was not accepted by the learned Magistrate, who was of the view that the liability of Ganeshbari Tea Co. as manufacturer of the Tea cannot save M/s. Tea King from the liability for storing and exposing for sale for human consumption and for selling the adulterated Tea.;