A.K.Nayak, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by Special Leave under section 378 (4), Cr. P.C. by the appellant Calcutta Municipal Corporation against an order of acquittal dated 14-12-1983, passed by Metropolitan and Municipal Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta, acquitting the accused opposite-party in a case under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) A complaint case was brought in the year 1978, by the Food Inspector, Dr. S.N. Mitra in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, alleging that the accused opposite-party had exposed for sale for human consumption mustard oil on 5-4-1978, which was found by the Public Analyst to be adulterted one. On process being issued by the Magistrate, the accused persons appeared and were released on bail and the case was fixed thereafter on 19-12-1978 for examination of prosecution witnesses. The accused persons were not examined under section 251, Cr.P.C. According to the appellant usually the Metropolitan Magistrate followed the warrant procedure regarding the trial of the offences punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. A petition was filed on behalf of the defence for discharging the accused persons under section 245 (2), Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate without giving an opportunity decided to try the case summarily and the complainant having not appeared acquitted the accused persons under section 256 (1), Cr.P.C. Hence this appeal.
(3.) The order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate has been assailed on the ground that the learned Magistrate followed the summons procedure case without examining the accused persons under section 251, Cr.P.C. and therefore committed an error by acquitting the accused persons under section 256(1), Cr. P.C. without following the procedures contained in sections 262 to 264, Cr. P.C.;