Md. Mumtaz Khan, J. - (1.) The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioners/accused persons under Section 401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for setting aside/quashing the judgment and order of conviction dated April 28, 2004 passed by the learned Municipal Magistrate, 4th Court, Calcutta in Case No. 2D of 2001 under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as also the judgment and order dated March 29, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 8th Fast Track Court, Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2004 affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Municipal Magistrate against these petitioners.
(2.) Petitioner No. 2 is a partner of petitioner No.1, M/s A.K. Sarkar and Company having its business place at 71, Biblabi Rash Behari Basu Road, Calcutta 700001. On December 6, 2000 Food Inspector/Opposite Party No. 2 visited the shop/godown of the petitioners at 71, Biblabi Rash Behari Basu Road, Kolkata and during inspection he found an article of food namely sugar boiled confectionery was stored/exposed for sale for human consumption. Petitioner No.2 was found present there in that shop/godown . After going through necessary formalities as required by the Act and Rules, samples of the said food article were collected, packed, labeled, wrapped and sealed in presence of witnesses and sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst tested the sample and reported that the sample taken by the food inspector and sent to him for analysis contravened Rule 32(c) and (f) Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, hence misbranded. Accordingly the food inspector after obtaining sanctioned from Local Health Authority and Chief Municipal Health Officer lodged a compliant before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on February 2, 2001 against these petitioners and one Mr. Amit Kumar Sarkar, another partner of petitioner No.1 Firm under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. After taking cognizance process was issued. After their appearance they were examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on their pleading not guilty, trial commenced.
(3.) Prosecution examined 3 witnesses including the Food Inspector and also produced and proved certain documents including the petition of compliant, Public Analyst report, consent of the Local Health Authority and CMHO of Calcutta Municipal Corporation. Defence also examined two witnesses including the accused Amit Kumar Sarkar and the Public Analyst. Thereafter on conclusion of trial and after examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure learned Magistrate found these petitioners and the accused Mr. Amit Kuamr Sarkar guilty of violation of Rule 32 (c) and (f) of the Food Adulteration Rules and accordingly convicted them for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced the petitioner No. 2 as also Amit Kumar Sarkar to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for 3 months each and the petitioner no.1 Firm, represented by petitioner no.2, was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default DW.;