SRI MAHAVIR AGENCY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) has been filed on 09.01.2014 by two convict petitioners M/s Mahavir Agency and its proprietor Bhikham Chand Pugalia for setting aside and/or quashing the judgment dated 26th June, 2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, City Sessions Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in Criminal Appeal no. 106 of 2007 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the judgment and order dated 16.10.2007 of conviction and sentence of the present petitioners to suffer rigorous imprisonment of two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/ - in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three months awarded by learned Senior Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta holding the present petitioners guilty of the charges under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short P.F.A. Act) in Case no. 16 D of 1999. Delay in filing this revisional application has been condoned by Hon'ble Single Judge (R.K. Bag - J.) on 04.04.2014 in CRAN 73 of 2014.

(2.) Inter alia, in the revisional application, the petitioners have contended that in spite of various infirmities in the prosecution case and discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses learned Senior Municipal Magistrate passed the judgment of conviction and sentence but in the appeal learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the written arguments of the petitioners and erred in law and facts in the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment is bad in law and facts and liable to be set aside. At the time of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners advanced his arguments that the petitioners were illegally made accused in the trial Court and that surprisingly the persons who were made accused initially were discharged and on their prayer these petitioners were made accused and convicted. According to him, report of chemical analyst is not sufficient to prove the article in question is adulterated food. He cited a decision of this High Court in the case of Lalit Kumar Gupta Vs. State of West Bengal and Another reported in (1996) 1 CLJ 10 and a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Kacheroo Mal reported in AIR 1976 SC 394.

(3.) Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 Food Inspector of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation submitted that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Senior Municipal Magistrate and the impugned judgment confirming such conviction and sentence do not suffer from any infirmity. He advanced his arguments that undisputedly the petitioner no. 1 is distributor of manufacturer namely, Kothari Products Limited and it sold the 'PAN PARAG' in question to 'Madhu Bon', the shop of the persons who were initially implicated as accused as vendors and on their information and prayer they were rightly discharged and the petitioners were made accused in view of the provisions under Section 19 (2) (a) read with Section 20 A of the P.F.A. Act. He also urged that prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proof.