GOBINDA PRASAD AGARWALA Vs. S K BASU
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Gobinda Prasad Agarwala
S K Basu
Click here to view full judgement.
ASISH BARAN MUKHERJEE, J. -
(1.)THIS is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. praying for setting aside the order, dated 26.5.1995, passed by the learned Senior Municipal Metropolitan Magistrate, First Court, Calcutta in Case No. 41D of 1989 and to quash the said proceeding.
(2.)THE case of the petitioner in short is that on 13.6.1989 Food Inspector inspected the shop of the accused/petitioner and collected sample of an article of food, namely, "Tree Top (Mango)", one part of the sample was sent to analyst for analysis. The analyst gave the opinion that the article was mis - branded inasmuch as there was no mention of the quantity of Vitamin C on the label. Accordingly, after necessary sanction, a prosecution was launched.
(3.)LATER , the petitioner filed a petition under Section 245(2), Cr. P.C. before the learned Magistrate which was subsequently dismissed by the impugned order order 26.5.1995.
In this case, none appeared for the Opposite Party. I have heard the submission made by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner. He has taken me through the Xerox copy of the analyst which is a part of the record. The opinion reads like this, "It means the samples of "Tree Top (Mango)' drink does not contain any declaration anywhere on the packet regarding the quantity of Vitamin C as required by Rule 32A. Hence, it is misbranded". It has been argued for the petitioner that the article was found to be adulterated but the only omission is that quantity of Vitamin C has not been mentioned on the label. The learned Advocate has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 174/1971 decided on 29.9.1995 wherein it has been mentioned that the report before the analyst is not conclusive and binding on the Court but it is for the Court to weigh his opinion and reach its own finding.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.