- (1.) This Court is hearing this revisional application under Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2004 as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta, in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2002, has been assailed before this Court. The learned First Appellate Court vide that judgment was pleased to affirm the judgment and order of conviction dated 18th December, 2001 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and Municipal Magistrate, (2nd Court), Calcutta, in Case No. 11 D of 1996 under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced the present revisionists to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each and further directed to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default to suffer further imprisonment for one month.
(2.) It may be noted that the accused-convict no.1, Ramprasad Gupta, was the proprietor of M/s. Kunal Enterprise of 204, Maharshi Debendra Road, P.S. Jorabagan, Calcutta-6 and the convict-revisionist no.2 was found present in the shop at the time of inspection. The fact relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this revisional application can be stated in brief thus :- That on 02-07-1996, one B. N. Paul, the Food Inspector, appointed under Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954 (hereinafter called as the said Act of 1954) inspected the shop, named and style as M/s. Kunal Enterprise where Arahar Dal (lotus brand) was stored and exposed for sale for human consumption. The said Food Inspector found the accused-revisionist no.2 there to whom he disclosed his identity and thereafter took a sample of 750 gms. of such Dal from the said accused no.2 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Rama Kanta Das and Barun Dey as contemplated and prescribed under the provisions of the said Act of 1954. One part of the sample was forwarded to the Public Analyst and the Public Analyst opined that the sample was adulterated and as such, unfit for human consumption. On receipt of such report, such Arahar Dal weighing 48 kgs. were seized and sealed. Written consent was obtained from the CMHO and prosecution was lodged against both the revisionists-convicts in respect of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the said Act of 1954. It may be noted that report of the public Analyst was not challenged by the convict petitioner No.2.
(3.) This revisional application has been preferred mainly on three grounds: 1) Non-compliance of Section 13(2) of the said Act of 1954; 2) Non-projection in the report of the Public Analyst how he arrived at the conclusion; and 3) That the learned Trial Court only in one question examined the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. which has caused prejudice to the revisionists.;