RENUPADA HAIDER AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For storing and selling adulterated mustard oil Renupada Halder and Satish Chandra Halder, the two petitioners before us, were convicted under section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (For short, 'the Act') and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months more by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour, 24-Parganas in Case No. C-351/78. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the said order of conviction and sentence being Cr. Appeal No 62/83 which was dismissed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore affirming the judgment and order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Being aggrieved, the petitioners then moved this Court in revision and obtained the present Rule.

(2.) The prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows :

(3.) Both the petitioners appeared on 6-4-78 and filed a petition before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate under Sec. 13(2) of the Act to get the sample of the mustard oil kept by the Local Health Authority ; analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The learned Magistrate allowed the prayer but instead of following the procedure as laid down in Sections (2-A) and (2-B) of the Act passed an order for sending a copy of the petition by registered post to the Central Food Laboratory for examining the sample, There was a direction, presumably upon the accused persons, to file postal receipt within 7 days showing the sending of a copy of the petition to the Central Food Laboratory. The direction was not complied with and the matter ended there. According to both the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioners were to blame themselves for not getting another sample examined by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory inasmuch as the petitioners did not deposit the requisite fee of Rs. 40.00 as prescribed by Rule 4(6) and even though inspite of this lapse the petitioners were given an opportunity to forward a copy of their petition by registered post to the Central Food Laboratory, the petitioners did not comply with the order.