M.K. Mukherjee, J. - (1.) On August 30, 1973 a Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta tiled a complaint before the Senior Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta alleging commission of an offence under Section 16(1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('Act' for short) by Shri Krishna Bhandari of 34, Deshapran Sashmal Road, Calcutta, its partners and the person in charge, of its business. In the complaint it has been alleged that Sri Krishna Bhandari had sold and exposed for sale refined and deodorised mustard oil which, on analysis, was found to be adulterated. In the trial the accused persons examined one Raj Kumar Dalmia, a partner of M/s. Rasoi Vanaspati Distributors, hereinafter referred to as the 'firm', to prove that they purchased the mustard oil from the firm which had given a warranty required under the Act.
(2.) On consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, the learned Magistrate acquitted one of the partners of Sri Krishna Bhandar and decided to proceed against the other accused as also against Raj Kumar Dalmia. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate invoked the provision of Section 20A of the Act and issued process against him. Sri Dalmia entered appearance and filed an application for his discharge on the ground that the evidence adduced did not justify his prosecution. The learned Magistrate rejected the application and aggrieved thereby Raj Kumar Dalmia moved this revisional petition.
(3.) On behalf of the petitioner it was urged that under Section 20A of the Act the Court could proceed only against the manufacturer, distributor or dealer and since in the instant case the distributor was a firm, namely, Rasoi Vanaspati Distributors, and since there was no evidence on record to indicate that he was in charge of and was responsible to the firm for the conduct of its business or that he was nominated to be in charge of and responsible to the firm for the conduct of its business he could not be prosecuted with the aid of Section 17 of the Act. On behalf of the Corporation of Calcutta it was contended, on the other hand, that the evidence of the petitioner himself clearly proved that he was looking after the business of the firm and as such he was liable for prosecution along with the firm in view of Section 17(l)(a)(ii) and (b) of the Act.;