BIMALENDRA NATH MAITRA J. - (1.) THE case for the prosecution is that on 4 -6 -1971 at about 11 a. m. P. W. 1 Amitava Sarkar, a Food Inspector appointed by the State Government under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, went to the oil shop of the accused at 3/5 Orphanganj Market, Kidderpore, Calcutta. At that time the accused appellant, Lakshmi Chand Rustogi, was in the shop. The Food Inspector took 2/3 samples of coconut oil from him in the presence of witness after observing all the formalities. Such oil was stored there and exposed for sale for human consumption. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported the same to be adulterated. Both the accused appellants were prosecuted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
(2.) THE defence was that it was non -edible oil, which was perfumed oil and not meant for human consumption. The learned Senior Municipal Magistrate believed the prosecution version and convicted the accused Sudhangshu Kumar Nag and Lakshmi Chand Rustogi under the above Sections, sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each. The order was that the seized stock of coconut oil would be destroyed. Hence the two appeals filed by the two accused appellants.
(3.) NONE appears at the hearing in support of the appeals. Any way, we have gone through the records and heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the Corporation of Calcutta as well as of the State.;