The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the prescribed standards and procedural requirements under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the distinction between different types of adulteration as defined in the Act.

JUDGMENT

ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J. - This application for revision under section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with section 482 of Cr. P.C has been filed by the two convict petitioners, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 17.09.2010 passed by Learned additional District and Sessions Judge, 9th Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in Criminal appeal No. 24 of 2010, thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 26.02.2010 passed by Learned Municipal Magistrate, 2nd Court, Calcutta in Case No. 3-D of 2009, where the petitioners were convicted for the offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 17 of the Prevention of Food adulteration act, 1954 and sentenced petitioner no. 2 to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3.000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and further imposed a fine of Rs. 3.000/- against the accused petitioner no. 1, the firm.

2. Brief fact of the case leading to this revisional application is that, petitioner no. 1, M/s. Bhattacharjee Mahasaya is a partnership firm, running a business of sweetmeat at 125/110, Diamond Harbour Road, Calcutta- 700008. Petitioner no. 2, Pannalal Bhattacharjee, is one of the partners of petitioner no. 1. On 29.01.2009 Mr. Shyamal Kumar Chakraborty, Food Inspector under Kolkata Municipal Corporation visited the shop of the petitioners and found Sweetmeat, 'Dohi' and Paneer stored for sale and human consumption. The Food Inspector purchased 750 grams of Paneer for Rs. 90/-. Thereafter the Food Inspector prepared a Notice in Form No. VI in carbon process and served the same upon petitioner no. 2. The Notice has been marked as Exhibit 3. He seized the purchased Paneer in presence of witness and cut the same in three equal parts and kept it in three clean, dry and empty glass bottles and added formalin in each of the glass bottle.

3. The Food Inspector who is Opposite Party No. 2 prepared sample coupons in four parts and tied them on each bottle. Signature of petitioner no. 2 was obtained on the sample coupons and on the receipt regarding cost. One of the sample was sent to the Public analyst and the other two glass bottles were sent to the office of Local Health authority. after receiving the sample analysis report from the Public analyst, Opposite Party No. 2 placed all the documents before the Local Health authority for necessary instruction for the purpose of prosecuting the appellant. after considering the documents and the Public analyst's Report permission was granted to the Food Inspector to prosecute the petitioners (Exhibit 9). a letter was issued by the Chief Municipal Health Officer and Local Health authority on 01.04.2009 address to Mr. Pannalal Bhattacharjee of M/s. Bhattacharjee Mahasaya along with the report of Public analyst No. JP/08/09 dated 24.02.2009, informing him that the food sample collected from his establishment was found adulterated, unfit for human consumption and the same was misbranded and that prosecution has been instituted against him under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of Prevention of Food adulteration act, 1954, the letter is marked as Exhibit 1. The intimation was received by petitioner no. 2 along with Public analyst's report on 04.04.2009. No objection was raised by petitioner no. 2 on receiving the letter with report.

4. a complaint was lodged before the Learned Municipal Magistrate Cum Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Kolkata on 30.03.2009 under section 16(1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food adulteration act, 1954 read with section 7 of Prevention of Food adulteration act. Summons were sent to the petitioners and after framing of charge on 09.07.2009 prosecution examined four witnesses. Mr. Swapan Kumar Das an Upper Division assistant in the office of the Local Health authority and Food Cell of Kolkata Municipal Corporation has been examined as PW-1. He produced the letter and a copy of Public analyst Repor