D.L. CHATTERJEE Vs. FOREMOST DAIRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional application is directed against an order dated 16th March, 1982, passed by Sri H.K. Gajra, Senior Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta in Case No. 35-D of 1978 whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to award compensation of Rs. 60,368/- in favour of Represent opposite parties, viz, Mrs. Formost Dairies Limited and others. The case arose in this way.

(2.) Sri D.L. Chatterjee, Food Inspector, Corporation of Calcutta, the present petitioner, visited the shop of the opposite parties on the 17th Feb., 1978 and took a sample of baby food which was described as "Indana Baby Food Bran Spray Dried Special Law Fat 2.2%." After performing the necessary formalities according to the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Rules made thereunder, a sample of that Food was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. Upon analysis the Public Analyst gave a report on 6th March, 1978 adjudging the Baby Food as "highly adulterated." On the basis of the said Analyst's report and after obtaining the necessary sanction, the Food Inspector Sri Chatterjee filed a complaint on the 8th April, 1978 before the Metropolitan Magistrate who was pleased to issue summons upon the opposite parties to face an indictment under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The learned Magistrate thereafter issued processes in due course of law. Being aggrieved thereby the opposite parties moved the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court. Sri T.K. Banerjee, the then Chief judge, heard the revision matter and quashed the proceeding observing inter alia "I agree with the submissions made on behalf of the opposite parties that the said stock is no longer fit for human consumption although it can be used as cattle fodder and to the interest of public health the said stock should be destroyed...". The record of the case along with the Judgment of Sri T. K. Banerjee was received back by the Municipal and Metropolitan Magistrate on 19-7-79 (Vide order No. 7 of the trial court's records). Thereafter the opposite parties filed an application under Sec. 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for an award of compensation on the ground that the foodstuff had in the meantime gone completely rotten. The learned Magistrate who heard both sides, took evidence and allowed the application preferred under Sec. 11 of the Act and awarded the amount of compensation in favour of the opposite parties as already Indicated before. Being aggrieved thereby the Food Inspector Sri Chatterjee has moved this revisional Court for setting aside that order of payment of compensation in favour of the opposite parties. Mr. Ray, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri Chatterjee, the Food Inspector and for matter of that Corporation of Calcutta, invites my attention to Sec. 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and argues that before awarding compensation in favour of the opposite parties' the Magistrate was duty bound to enter into the question as to whether the seized Baby Food was or was not adulterated. In this connection Mr. Roy puts a special emphasis on Sub-section (5) of Sec. 11 which runs thus:

(3.) Mr. Ghose draws my attention to the certified copy of the Judgment of Sri T. K. Banerjee annexed to the revisional application wherefrom it would transpire that there was a definite finding of the court on the question as to whether the seized stuff was adulterated or not (Vide P. 5 of the certified copy of the Judgment wherein towards the bottom it has been observed that the baby food in question cannot therefore be said to be adulterated). I have already said that on receipt of the case record from the City Sessions Court, the Magistrate heard both the sides regarding the amount of compensation for which an application was filed before him earlier by the opposite parties. Mr. Roy's contention that the case should be remitted bad to the Municipal Magistrate for re-hearing of the matter and for a fresh finding as to whether the foodstuff was adulterated or not thus loses all its meaning and significance. It has been rightly argued by Mr. Ghose appearing on the other side that the Magistrate had no alternative other than to accept the finding that the foodstuff was not adulterated in tune with the observations of the superior court.