HARIPADA SAHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR selling adulterated curd (dahi) the petitioner was convicted by the. learned judicial Magistrate, Hooghly, under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('act' for short) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to a fine of rs. 1, 000/-, in default to simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly who, while dismissing the appeal and maintaining the conviction, reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to three months and the fine to Rs. 500/-, in default to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months more. Thereafter, the petitioner moved this court in revision by filing the present application and obtained this Rule.

(2.) THE case for the prosecution, in short, is that on 7. 8. 79, the Food inspector promode Kumar Chakraborty (P. W. 1)of the Bansberia Municipality purchased, a sample of 600 gms. of curd (dahi from the sweetmeat shop of the petitioner. After following the procedure prescribed by the Act, he sent one part of the sample to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the sample was adulterated as it did not conform to the specification of curd prepared from buffalo milk. Thereafter, on the complaint of the District Health Officer, Hooghly, this proceeding was started against the petitioner.

(3.) MR. Guha, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, has made a three-fold submission before us in support of the rule. They are