KANAI LAL DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This revisional application is directed against the order passed by the learned Senior Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta on 13.9.90 in Case No.220 of 1990 whereby he held that the report of the Public Analyst had not been superseded by the certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory and proceeded to try the case.

(2.) On 2.1.90 Sri A. B. Roy disclosing his identity as the Food Inspector of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation purchased nine packages of Cookme Brand Lanka Powder (Chilli Powder) of 50 grams each from the petitioner no. 2 Asit Dutta who was looking after the grocery shop of petitioner no.1 at 33/1A/12 Manicktola Main Road, Bagmary, Calcutta. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and the remaining two parts of the said sample were packed into one packet and sealed and sent to the Local (Health) Authority (Chief Municipal Health Officer) .As per report of the Public Analyst the said sample was misled inasmuch as there was no declaration anywhere on the packet regarding the manufacturing date as required under rule 32(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. After the prosecution had instituted against the petitioner under section 16(1) (a) (i) read with section 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the first Court of Municipal and Metropolitan Magistrate Calcutta, the Chief Municipal Health Officer and Local (Health) Authority by his letter dated 12.3.90 sent a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the petitioner no.2 the seller and requested him to make an application before the learned Municipal and Metropolitan Magistrate within 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the said report to get the sample of the article of food analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. Thereafter the Director, Central Food Laboratory as per his certificate dated 10.9.90 opined that the sample of Chilli Powder conformed to the standard of Chilli Powder as per P.F.A. Rules 1955. His certificate does not show that the sample was misbranded. After receipt of the certificate from the Director of Central Food Laboratory , the petitioner prayed for their discharge on the ground that since the report of the Public Analyst stands superseded by the certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, there are no materials to proceed against them in the instant case. The learned Senior Municipal Magistrate, however, by his order dated 13.9.90 held that since there was no finding of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory on the score of misbranding, the report of the Public Analyst on that score cannot be said to have been superseded. With this finding he proceeded to try the case.

(3.) Being aggrieved by such order the petitioners have filed the instant revisional application challenging the propriety and legality of the impugned order and for quashing the entire proceeding in which the impugned order was made.