SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, W B Vs. ISWAR CHANDRA JANA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is on behalf of the State and is directed against an order passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate of Midnapore (South) on 23.12.1961 in a case in which the respondent Iswar Chandra Jana was prosecuted for an alleged offence under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on a complaint filed by the Food Inspector, Sabang, P.H. Centre in Midnapore. The allegation in substance was that accused Iswar Chandra Jana had sold, exposed and stored for sale Cocoanut oil at Khagrageriahat on 15.5.1961. A sample of the Cocoanut oil was taken and the Public Analyst found it to be adulterated and also to contain mineral oil.

(2.) THE case was being tried before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate by following a Summons Procedure under Chap. XX of the Criminal Procedure Code after cognisance was taken on 28.11.1961. On the very next date fixed in the case that is on 23.12.1961 the learned Magistrate examined the accused under Section 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code He pleaded not guilty. Instantly in the same order the Magistrate proceeded to record an order in these terms : "The place of occurrence is in some muffosil of Sabang P.S.I cannot accept that Cocoanut oil in muffosil of Bengal cannot (sic) be accepted as an article of food to which the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 applies. Hence I struck off the case and release the accused."

(3.) AGAINST that order which tantamounts to an order of acquittal present appeal has been preferred by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs for the State of West Bengal under Section 417(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code It has been contended on behalf of the appellant before us that in a trial by Summons Procedure, after the plea of the accused was taken under Section 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the plea was one of not guilty, it was the duty of the Magistrate to proceed to hear the complaint and take evidence in support of the prosecution. He had no jurisdiction to acquit an accused person without taking evidence in the case, far less to strike off the case at that stage.