HINDUSTHAN UNILEVER LTD. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revisions have been preferred u/s 397/401 read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside and quashing the judgments and orders dated 18th of June, 2018 passed by the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court Bichar Bhaban, Kolkata in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2014 and 34 of 2014 thereby allowing the appeal and remanding back the matter to the court of Learned Municipal Magistrate for reconsideration of the matter from the stage u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further directing the Learned Magistrate to write a fresh judgment after considering the respective arguments on behalf of the parties.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that one Food Inspector of Kolkata Municipal Corporation registered a criminal case against the present petitioner company and others duly represented by one Mr. Chandrakanata Pagnis for the offence u/s 16(1)(a) (i) and (7) The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 for the alleged offence of misbranding of 'Red Label Natural Care Tea'. In the said proceeding the Learned Municipal Magistrate convicted the present petition along with others by an order and judgments dtd. 19/2/2014 and thereby sentence them to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine Rs.5,000.00each in-case of default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved by the said order the present petitioner preferred an appeal before the Learned City Sessions Court, Bichar Bhaban Kolkata, vide criminal no. 33 of 2014. The said appeal was heard by the Learned Fast track 1st Court, Bichar Bhaban, Kolkata. After hearing the parties the Learned Fast Track 1st Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of conviction and sentence. However, the matter was remanded back to the Learned Court of Senior Municipal Magistrate for fresh consideration from the stage of examination of the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and directed the Magistrate to re-write the judgment after hearing the parties.

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the present revision has been preferred. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment passed by the Learned Appellate Court suffers illegality the appellate court has though considered the judgment passed by the Learned Magistrate to be suffered by serious discrepancies and ambiguity, still then he remanded back the matter for fresh decision. The case of prosecution before the Magistrate was not at all proved against the present petitioner. The basic evidence of the prosecution case i.e. the analyst report was not proved by the analyst himself. There is nothing before the Learned Municipal Magistrate to hold how the alleged food items 'Tea', was misbranded. The reason for such misbranding was not at all before the Learned Magistrate on that score the Learned Magistrate should have dismissed the prosecution case by acquitting the present petitioner. Learned Appellate court has categorically pointed out the discrepancies appeared in the judgment of Municipal Magistrate but, erroneously remanded the case back. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the Learned Appellate Court is need be set aside and the present petitioner is liable to be acquitted as the case has not been proved before the Learned Municipal Magistrate.