JUDGMENT :

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

1. In this revision, the judgment and order of the first appellate Court, that is, of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court at City Sessions Court, Bichar Bhawan, at Calcutta, dated 29.11. 2012, has been assailed.

2. At the genesis, is the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12. 03. 2012, passed by the Municipal Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta in case No. 9D/2008. The Court was holding trial against the present petitioners/accused persons, for an offence under section 16 (1) (a) (i) and section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It examined witnesses and exhibited documents. Finally, the Court has found the petitioners/accused persons guilty of the offence as above, convicted them and has imposed to each of them, a sentence to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-each, in default of which, each one of them would be liable to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of 10 days.

3. The said judgment and order of sentence of the Magistrate was challenged by the present petitioners, before the first appellate Court, in the appeal as aforestated. The Court has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the judicial Magistrate, by dint of the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal, to challenge the said impugned judgment, as well as, the verdict of the Magistrate, regarding conviction and sentence.

4. The complaint dated 16.7.2008, submitted in the Court of the Municipal Magistrate, Kolkata, may be discussed in a nut shell, at the very outset. One Sri Bishnu Prasad Samanta, a ‘food inspector’ by designation, from the concerned department, was the complainant. He said that on May 13, 2008, he inspected the shop/manufactory situated at 144, Kalighat Road, Kolkata – 26. The food article, namely, ‘dahi’, which was stored/exposed for sale for human consumption, was examined by the complainant in his official capacity. Petitioner No. 1, was the owner and proprietor of the shop whereas petitioner No. 2 has been the salesman present in the shop at the relevant point of time. 600 g of the said food article (dahi) was collected by way of purchase and was separated into three parts. One part of the same was sent to the Public Analyst, for analysis. The remaining two parts of the sample were packed and sealed and sent to the Local Health Authority, in accordance with law. The complainant has narrated that in accordance with the report of the Public Analyst dated June 9, 2008, the food sample as above was adulterated. Thereafter, consent was obtained in accordance with law, for initiation of prosecution, and finally the present case was filed against both the proprietor of the shop and the seller, that is, the present petitioners.

5. Mr. Chattopadhyay, who is representing the petitioners in this case has vehemently attacked both the impugned judgment and also the judgment of the Magistrate, as mentioned above. His initial point of argument is regarding the maintainability of the proceeding adopted by the Magistrate in this case. He says that, in terms of the statute, the Magistrate was to adopt a summary proceeding to dispose of this case. However, according to Mr. Chattopadhyay, in defiance of such a statutory provision, the trial Court has adopted procedure of a warrant case, lodged on the basis other than police report. He says that due to such erroneous approach of the Magistrate in dealing with this matter dehors the provisions in the statute, the petitioners have suffered prejudice by way of being drawn unnecessarily long in a court of law and having suffered serious mental agony for that. The other point envisaged by the ld. Advocate is that, it would have been statutorily required that the alleged contaminated food article should be declared as not fit for human consumption and injurious to health, before the petitioners could be convicted for storage or sale of the same, but the same has not