(1.) With the help of this criminal revision, the petitioner has put to challenge the judgment and order, dated 29.05.2004, passed, in Criminal Appeal No. 11(l)/03, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, has upheld the judgment and order, dated 19.02.2003, passed, in CR Case No. 311/2004, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PFA Act') and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of 2 (two) months. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
(2.) I have heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner, and Mr. K. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
(3.) Before entering into the merit of this revision, let me take note of the case of the prosecution. The prosecution's case, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as follows: On 10.11.2000, a Food Inspector (PW1), accompanied by his Office Peon (PW2), visited the sweetmeat shop of the accused-appellant, which was run under the name and style of M/s Annapurna Mistanna Bhander, and, upon serving notice on the accused-petitioner, in Form No. VI, PW 1 purchased 300 grams of Bundia by making payment of Rs. 18/- only and sent, in course of time, one of the samples of the Bundia, so purchased, to the Public Analyst, Assam, for analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the sample, in question, was 'artificially coloured' and the same was, therefore, adulterated. On obtaining sanction for prosecution from the Local (Health) Authority, the Food Inspector (PW1) made a complaint, in writing, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, seeking prosecution of the accused-petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the PFA Act.