Raghunath Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) This revisional application arises out of an order of a Presidency Magistrate, now designated as Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, framing charge against the Petitioners under Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as amended by Act XLIX of 1966.
(2.) Mr. Amal Krishna Dutta, Advocate, with Mr. Gouri Sankar De, Advocate, appears for the Petitioners. Mr. Durgapada Dutt is the Advocate for the Corporation of Calcutta. Mr. Bikas Chandra Sen, Advocate, represents the State of West Bengal.
(3.) The prosecution case is that one B.K. Bhowmik, a food inspector purchased sample dahi stored and exposed for sale from a shop of M/s. K.C. Das Pvt. Ltd. at 11 -A Esplanade East, Calcutta. The Public Analyst declared the dahi to be adulterated and mis -branded. With the consent of the Health Officer, the food inspector started the prosecution. On consideration of the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents exhibited, the learned Magistrate found that the accused Nos. 1 to 6, Directors of the company, were the whole -time workers on remuneration and that they had the sole responsibility for the conduct of the business. He also found that the accused No. 7 was the seller of dahi employed by the company. The charge as stated above has been framed against each of the accused persons.;