B.N. Maitra, J. - (1.) The case for the prosecution is that a Food Inspector inspected a godown of the accused at 28A, Creek Row, Calcutta on 17-2-1978 and found baby food stored/exposed for sale for human consumption. Sample was purchased by him from the accused No. 5 and it was sent to the Public Analyst. The latter reported the sample to be adulterated. A complaint was filed according to the provisions of section 16(l)(a)(i)/7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Process was issued by the learned Magistrate. Against the order an application for revision was filed in the City Sessions Court at the instance of the accused No. 4. That court allowed the Revisional application and quashed the proceeding. Hence these two Revisions have been taken out by the State of West Bengal and by the Corporation of Calcutta.
(2.) The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that Rule 37A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was violated. Moreover, baby food is the same thing as infant food. The report of the Public Analyst, which was annexed to the petition of complaint, shows that the sample of baby food does not conform to the prescribed standard for infant milk in respect of milk fat, cane sugar, dextrose and vitamin A contents. So the Rules should be made absolute.
(3.) It appears that the complaint was filed on the allegation that the baby food, which had been stored in the godown of the accused at 28A, Creek Row, Calcutta, was adulterated. The learned Chief Judge of the City Sessions Court rightly pointed out that the baby food was not the same thing as infant food. There is no prescribed standard for baby food. This is one aspect of the case. The question of alleged violation of the provisions of section 37A was also considered by that court. In the petition of complaint there is no whisper that the provisions of Rule 37A were contravened by the accused. Hence that point cannot be urged in this court. Since the petition of complaint does not show that the infant baby food was stored in the godown in question, the proceedings were rightly quashed. It may be pointed out that the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner did not press the Rules against opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4.;