Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) Challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2012 the petitioner herein has preferred this application. The learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of sentence recorded by the learned Municipal Magistrate 2nd Court Calcutta in Complaint Case No. 14D of 2011 under Section 16(1)a/7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter to be called as PFA Act.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner as ventilated in the revisional application is such that the learned trial court as well as the First Appellate Court erred in not appreciating the testimony of prosecution witnesses in its proper perspectives and overlooked the major contradictions appeared in their evidence. The petitioner further contended that statutory compliance of the provision of PFA Act, so far as it relates to the search, seizure and taking of sample and report of public analyst, were not in conformity with the said provisions.
(3.) Now, the need of the hour is to revisit the prosecution case. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case in a capsulated form is such that 27.07.2011 at or about 12.30 pm. the concerned food inspector inspected the aforesaid shop (M/s. Ganesh Bhandar) and found the accused person in the shop. After disclosing his identity and purpose of his visit to the petitioner he collected 'Mustard oil' which was stored in the said shop for the purpose of sale for human consumption. Out of suspicion he had collected 1,200 grams of said 'Mustard oil' out of 6,000 grams and paid Rs.96 to the accused as the value of the sample. After observing the legal formalities in terms of the PFA Act and Rules, he poured the said sample in three equal parts and sent one part of the said sample to the local public analyst for analysis and the rest two parts were sent to local C.M.H.O. After getting the report from the public analyst he found that those were adulterated 'Mustard oil' and thereafter he has submitted prosecution report. It further appears from the L.C.R. that the learned Magistrate has recorded the evidence and considered the documents viz. the seizure list, public analyst report and forwarding reports and thereafter convicted the present petitioner.;