NARATMAL NAHATA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. FH Laskar, learned PP, Assam.

(2.) The moot question involved in this criminal revision is whether a fresh consent under section 20 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act) is required after issuance of the Certificate by the Director, Central Food Laboratory.

(3.) Mr. Kamar, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner's conviction under section 16 read with section 7(1) of the Act and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo sentence for one month, awarded vide the judgment and order dated 21.6.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon in CR Case No.2963/1992 which was confirmed ultimately by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon by his impugned judgment and order dated 18.9.1995 in Criminal Appeal No.36 (N) of 1995, is ex-facie illegal and bad in law on the sole count that no fresh consent for prosecution of the petitioner was obtained after receipt of the report from the Central Food Laboratory by which the earlier report of the Public Analyst was superseded, and therefore, the report of the Public Analyst became non-est and as such the consent for prosecution of the petitioner was not a valid sanction, as a result of which the whole trial against the petitioner was vitiated. According to him, on receipt of the report of the Public Analyst submitted after examination of a sample of Jeera sent to him collected by the Food Inspector, PW 1 on 20.7.92 from the grocery shop of the accused-petitioner situated at Puranigudam, opining the said sample to be adulterated and unfit for consumption, the Food Inspector wrote for consent for prosecution of the accused-petitioner to the Local Health Authority as referred under section 20 of the Act and thereafter a criminal proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. After initiation of the case, on the prayer of the accused petitioner before the Court for analysing the sample of Jeera by the Central Food Laboratory, the sample was sent to the said Laboratory which after due analysis of the sample, submitted the report with the opinion that the sample of Jeera was adulterated. His argument is that after receipt of such report from the Central Food Laboratory, the earlier report of the Public Analyst became non-est and therefore fresh consent was necessary for initiation of prosecution against the petitioner and the initiation of such prosecution with the consent given on the basis of earlier report of Public Analyst cannot be continued.