MOHARI LALL Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against a conviction and sentence on the two accused persons under Section 406, Calcutta Municipal Act, (Bengal Act 3 of 1923) read with Section 488. Mohari Lall is the proprietor of the shop and Sower Lall was acting as the actual salesman. The shop is situated at 24/1, Sir Hariram Goenka 'Street, Calcutta. A Food Inspector of the Calcutta Corporation visited the shop. His evidence is that he found actually adulterated turmeric was being sold to customers. He purchased a sample of the same. What is more, he found turmeric was being ground with calcium carbonate in a machine near where the accused salesman was actually selling the article. He observed all the necessary requisites for the taking of such a sample and for sending the same to the Public Analyst of the Calcutta Corporation. The certificate of the Public Analyst is that even on physical examination small solid particles of calcium carbonate were visible to naked eye and chemical examination disclosed also calcium carbonate and he was, of opinion that the sample of turmeric was adulterated with calcium carbonate. The Food Inspector Dr. H.C. Saha is himself a medical man & his evidence is that as a doctor he would boldly say that such furmeric mixed with calcium carbonate was harmful and injurious to health and it might produce stones & give rise to serious diseases, etc. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. The accused Moharilall in his statement under Section 342, Criminal P. C. said that the turmeric was not to be sold by him but as it had got mixed up, it was going to be thrown away by him. The statement of Sower Lall was that he was a servant. No evidence was given on behalf of the defence.

(2.) These facts, as I have stated, were accepted by the learned Magistrate on the evidence on record. They have not been challenged by Mr. Chatterji as incorrect. His contention first is that the Public Analyst's certificate is inadmissible in evidence and he has referred me to Sections 510, Criminal P. C.' This argument was obviously based upon a mistake as it had overlooked Section 425 (2), Calcutta Municipal Act, read with Section 3 (55) of the same Act.: These two sections of the Calcutta Municipal Act would show that an Analyst appointed by the Calcutta Corporation is a Public Analyst and that a Public Analyst's report is evidence without calling the Analyst to Court. This has therefore nothing to do with Sections 510, Criminal P. C.

(3.) The next argument of Mr. Chatterji was that I should take seller to mean the person in: whose name the licence has actually been granted. That contention cannot be supported in the context of the section itself. It shows by the words 'by any other person on his behalf that not only the person who is the actual proprietor or holder of the licence but anyone selling on his behalf comes within the mischief of the section as the seller.