JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The petitioner was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, 1976 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-by a judgment and order of conviction dated 6th August, 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia, in Case No. 497C of 1994 corresponding to T.R. No. 363 of 1994.

2. The aforesaid order of conviction was affirmed on appeal by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Track Court-1, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2012.

3. The Sub-Divisional Food Inspector, Sadar, Sub-Division Nadia lodged a complaint dated 27.07.1994 which precisely stated the petitioner to own a grocery shop at Chatapara, Tehatta, dealing with storage and sale of food item namely (‘Atta’ which was kept in a sack). On an inspection the Food Inspector purchased a sample of wheat powder from a sack containing 20 kilogram ‘Atta’ on presumption of the same being adulterated. He complied the legal formalities in presence of a witness named Mohan Ghosh, in order to send the sample to Public Analyst, Nadia.

4. A part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Nadia for analysis and other two parts of the samples were sent to the Local (Health) Authority, Sadar, Sub-Division, Nadia, as per provision of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, 1976 (No. 34 of 1974) after observance of all legal formalities. The Public Analyst, Nadia on examination of the said sample expressed his opinion that the sample of wheat powder was adulterated as per his Report No. 1194(4) dated 06.07.1994. On the basis of the said report of the Public Analyst, Nadia, it appeared that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, 1976, read with Section 7(i) of the said Act.

5. On the basis of materials on record charges were framed under Section 16 (1A) (i), of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, 1976, to which accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as per law.

6. The complainant produced 3 witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

7. The Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the provisions enumerated in Section 13 and Section 11 (i) (b), Section 10 (7), Section 19 (2) and Section 13 (3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, 1976 had not been complied with by the complainant, i.e. the Food Inspector at the time of seizing the sample. The seized sample was never produced before the Court which was otherwise destroyed without following the rules and obtaining leave of the concerned Court. The ownership of the grocery shop was not proved and the seizure was not conducted in presence of any independent witness. The analysis report did not reveal the sample sent for examination was unsuitable for human consumption. The complainant has falsely implicated the petitioner and therefore the order of conviction dated 06.07.1994 is liable to be set aside.

8. The Learned Advocate for the State submits the report of the Public Analyst endorses the sample to be adulterated and accordingly the petitioner has been rightly convicted and the revisional application shall be dismissed.

9. The complainant PW-1 Debasish Roy being Sub-Divisional Food Inspector, Krishnanagar deposed his doubtfulness about the quality of the wheat powder and purchased 600 grams of the same against a receipt with the signature of Swapan Debnath, the owner of the grocery shop and Mohan Ghosh marked as ‘Exhibit-1’. On 27.05.1994 he was posted as Sub-Divisional Food Inspector at Nadia and he had inspected the grocery shop of the accused Swapan Debnath of Chaterpara along with G.D.A. Mohon Ghosh. Prepared receipts in form No. VI was served to the accused in presence of witnes