NARESH CHANDRA DUTTA ALIAS NARESH DUTTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been preferred under sections 401 and 482 of the Cr. PC. The case of the petitioner is that Case No. 561C of 1995 was started against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint filed by the local Health Authority, Sadar Sub-Division Nadia alleging therein that on 17.5.1995 one Debashish Ray, Food Inspector along with one Mohan Ghosh went to the godown of the petitioner situated at Lichu Bazar, Bethuwadahari and found that the petitioner was selling food articles like musuri dal etc. Being suspicious that the said musuri dal was adulterated, the Food Inspector after serving a notice upon the petitioner purchased 7.50 gms of asto musuri dal and paid price of Rs.7.50. The accused/petitioner issued a voucher for that. Thereafter the Food Inspector in presence of the accused and the witness sealed the said musuri dal after observing the legal formalities. The sealed packet was sent to the local Health Authority. The Public Analyst on examination of the sample expressed his opinion that the sample of asto musuri dal was adulterated. The Food Inspector thereafter sent a copy of the analysis report to the accused/petitioner giving him an option to get it re-examined and the said notice was duly served upon the accused/petitioner. On the basis of the complaint, cognizance was taken and process was issued against the accused/petitioner. During trial, charge under section 16(l)(A)(i) read with section 7(i) of the Food Adulteration Act was framed against the accused. Charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution has examined, during trial, the P.W. 1 the Food Inspector, Debasish Ray and P.W. 2 Mohan Ghosh. After conclusion of the trial the learned Magistrate found the accused/petitioner guilty for the said charge and convicted and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- i.d. to suffer further R.I. for 100 days. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1996 before the learned Sessions Judge, Nadia against the said order of conviction. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Nadia to whom the appeal was transferred, by his order dated 17.11.1998 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction as passed by the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner has preferred the present appeal on the ground that the petition of complaint was not filed after obtaining proper sanction of the appropriate authority and the local authority simply gave his approval for filing the complaint without applying his mind. In fact, it has been alleged that the said authority did not independently consider the materials placed before him and he mechanically appended his signature in the prescribed form which is clear violation of section 20 of the Food Adulteration Act and as such the petitioner has claimed that the cognizance, as taken by the learned Magistrate, is bad in law.

(2.) It has further been alleged by the petitioner that there has been non- compliance of the provisions of section 10(7) of the Food Adulteration Act as it appears from the record that none was called by the Food Inspector to be present at the time of the taking of sample. The petitioner has further claimed that there is non-compliance of Rules 17 and 18 and as such the learned Courts below were not justified in passing the order of conviction. The petitioner has further claimed that the learned Court below was not at all justified in not considering the case of the petitioner as per provisions of section 360 Cr. PC while imposing the sentence.

(3.) As such, due to all these reasons the petitioner has prayed that the order of conviction as passed by the Courts below against the petitioner should be set aside.