D.N.DAS GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS is a Revision Petition directed against the order of an Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan, upholding the convictions and sentences of the petitioners under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954,
(2.) THE prosecution case is that the Food Inspector of the Municipality of Asansol went to the shop of the petitioners on the 12th April, 1957, at about 9'O clock in the morning accompanied by a Sub -Inspector of Police. The Food Inspector purchased 6 chhataks of musturd oil from the petitioners, who were in the shop at that time looking after their business, and paid The price thereof. There was another person in the shop who was called as a witness by the Food Inspector to be present at the time when the sample of musturd oil was purchased. After observing all formalities he divided the oil into three parts and packed and sealed them. One phial was handed over to the petitioners and two other phials were taken away by the Food Inspector who sent one of the two phials to the Public Analyst for necessary action. On analysis the oil was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst. Thereafter the prosecution was instituted by the Administrator of the Municipality.
(3.) THE petitioners pleaded not guilty. The defence was that the oil was not seized from the shop but from a room at the back of the shop, that the provisions of Section 10(7) of the aforesaid Act were not properly complied with, and that petitioner Ganesh Lal Shaw was not at the shop at the material time. The accused persons were convicted by a learned Magistrate of the First Class, Asansol, under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for five months each. The conviction was obviously under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, this being the first conviction under the Act. The convictions and sentences were upheld by the learned Judge as already indicated above. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, namely, P.W. 1 Sailaja Bhusan Some, Food Inspector of the Municipality of Asansol and Jyotish Chandra Chakravorty (P.W. a), Sub -Inspector of Police. P.W. 1 purchased the sample of mustard oil and paid the price thereof. P.W. 2 who accompanied the Food Inspector to the shop became a witness at the time when the sample was taken. Another person who was present in the shop at that time, namely, Satya Narain became the second witness at the request of the Food Inspector. Satya Narain has not been called as a witness by the prosecution in this case. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case and overruled the objections raised on behalf of the defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dealt with the facts and the law and he agreed with the findings of the learned Magistrate. The defence case was stated in the judgment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as follows: It is contended in this appeal that the trial of the appellants was vitiated as the provisions of Section 10, Sub -section 7 of the Act were not complied with, and that the mustard oil was not seized from the shop. It was further contended that the sentences were heavy, it was also contended that the appellant Ganesh was not in the shop at the time of taking the sample or purchasing the mustard oil and had not anything to do with the shop from where the musturd oil was purchased and sample taken. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that both the petitioners were owners of the shop, that although the sample was actually sold by Ganesh Lal. his son Bhagwandas, the other petitioner, was also liable as an owner of the shop, that the provisions of Section 10(7) had been complied with, that the search witness who had been examined by the prosecution, namely, P.W. 2, was a reliable witness and that the prosecution had given a satisfactory explanation for not examining the other witness, namely, Satya Narain who according to the prosecution had disappeared or whose where abouts were not known.;