S.K. BASU Vs. PARESH VORA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties.

(2.) Assailing the judgment and order of acquittal passed by Senior Municipal Magistrate and Metropolitan Magistrate 1st Class, Calcutta, the present appeal has been preferred where the order of acquittal of the respondents from the charge levelled against them under Sec. 16(1)(a)(ii), read with Sec. 7 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 has been questioned.

(3.) Briefly stated, the case of the appellant was that on 28th May, 1988 at about 12.15 p.m. one Mr. Atal Behari Roy (P.W.1), Food Inspector of C.M.C. inspected an Ice -cream Company under the name and style as 'M/s. Jolly Chap' alias 'Sree Ganesh Icecream Company' located at 172, Ramesh Dutta Street, Calcutta -700 006 where he found one Ranjan Kumar Singhania (who has been designated as respondents No. 2 and 3 as person -in -charge and seller hereinafter referred to as the respondent No. 2 for the sake of convenience) before whom the complainant (P.W.1) disclosed his identity and came to know from him that the respondent No. 1 was the proprietor of the said business. During such visit -cum -inspection, the Inspector (P.W.1) suspected some milk ice -candies manufactured, stored or exposed for sale were of sub -standard quality and unfit for human consumption. Intending to draw one sample from the milk ice -candies, the complainant called one local witness named Birbahadur Singh of 9, Ramesh Dutta Street, Calcutta to the said establishment and a notice was served in Form No. VI upon the respondent No. 2 and thereafter he purchased 900 grams of milk ice -candies as sample from the said stock at a cost of Rs. 21/ - after observing all necessary formalities, prescribed by the Act and Rules thereunder. Thereafter he divided the sample into three equal parts and put each part in three empty dry and clean phials and sent one part to the Public Analyst for analysis, received report in due course wherefrom it was seen that the sample of milk ice -candies (Jolly Chap) did not contain declaration regarding addition, extraneous colouring materials as required under Rule 24 and it was 'mis -branded'. Thereafter on perusal of the documents and records, the concerned authority accorded sanction to prosecute the respondents herein. Accordingly, on the basis of the petition of complaint, a case was registered, cognizance was taken, charge was framed on the basis of evidence taken before consideration of such charge and on conclusion of trial, after cross -examination of the complainant's witnesses on framing of the charge, learned trial court found the respondents not guilty of the offence as complained of and acquitted them from the charge levelled against them.