K.K.MITRA,J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order passed by a Presidency Magistrate convicting the appellant under Sections 16(1)(a)(i)/7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that on June 3. 1968 the Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta visited a shop in the name and style of 'Bengal Trading Corporation situated at 6 -A' Nabin Sirkar Lane, The appellant who is the sole proprietor of the concern was present. There was also a seller present at the shop. The Inspector purchased three closed bottles containing food having inscription on the bottle as 'Betraco Milk Food/Betraco Baby Food (Cow's dried milk for babies and infants)' as sample for analysis being suspicious about the purity of the food product. He gave notice in writing to the seller Barun Kumar Basu. He sent one of the bottles to the Public. Analyst for analysis and report. He handed over one bottle to the seller Barun Kumar Basu and he kept the third bottle with him for future reference. The Food Inspector observed all the formalities enjoined under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules made thereunder' in taking the sample and gave notice in Form VI of which a copy was received by the seller Barun Kumar Basu who appended his signature on it. The Public Analyst after analysis submitted his report on the basis of the date supplied in the report that the sttQlPle was adulterated as it did hot conform to the standard for dried milk to be used as infant food and also that there was no declaration given on the printed label affixed to the bottle of baby food as to whether it was roller -dried or spray -dried along with the date before which the content should be used as required under the Act and the rules made thereunder. The Food Inspector after obtaning necessary sanction from the Cor -poration Health Officer filed the complaint.
(3.) THE defence is a plea of in -nocence. It is contended by the de -i fence that the food in question was manufactured with skimmed milk and that the opinion formed by the Public Analyst that the article of food was adulterated is wrong on that account, It is also challenged that the process of analysis adopted for determining iron contents was wrong and unscientific leading to inaccurate result. The learn -ed Magistrate accepted the prosecution case and convicted the appellant as Stated before.;