SWAPAN KUMAR Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the cases are taken up together, as both the cases involve same points of law.

(2.) Case No.494-D of 1977 of the Court of the 2nd Municipal Magistrate and Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta is proceeding against the present petitioners sellers of Banaspati - and opposite parties 2 and 3 being the dealers from whom the aforementioned sellers had purchased the said supply of Banaspati under the provisions of S.16 sub-sec.(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on allegation that the said Banaspati on being examined by the Public Analyst was found adulterated. The petitioners in Revision No.2026 of 1981 prayed that the aforementioned case be quashed as they had purchased their supply of the Banaspati in question from the aforementioned dealers in closed sealed pack tins and were given cash memos with written warranty in the prescribed form and further that they had stored the same in a proper way.

(3.) Revision No.539 of 1986 has been started by the dealers from whom the sellers had purchased their supply of the Banaspati. They also petitioned the learned Magistrate for their discharge on the ground that they in their turn had purchased their supply of the Banaspati in question from Berar Oil Industry of 16, India Exchange Place, Calcutta-1 in sealed and packed tins having proper labels attached to the tins and further that they were given cash-memos for the same along with written warranty in the prescribed form and further that after their purchase they had properly stored the said tins and sold the same to the sellers mentioned above in the same state as purchased by them. The learned Magistrate, however, rejected the applications of the petitioners in both the cases. Hence, these revisional applications.