JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. The instant criminal revisional application is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated February 28, 1995 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Bankura in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1994 affirming those dated July 28, 1994 of Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur, 1st class, District – Bankura in Case No. 194C of 1992 convicting the accused petitioner under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. The prosecution case precisely stated that the Sub-Divisional Food Inspector Sri Iswar Chandra Jana and his Assistant Sri Ajit Chandra De had been to the grocery shop of the petitioner and his brother, who were the partners in business on 07.11.1992 at about 11:30 a.m. at village – Nafardanga, P.S. – Sonamukhi, District – Bankura and found 30 (thirty) kilograms of Coriander (Dhania) exposed for sale in a gunny bag which was allegedly insect infested, 450 gms., Dhania was purchased therefrom and after observing the formalities under the aforesaid Act, the same was found to be adulterated both by the Public Analyst as well as by the Central Food Laboratory Report and thereafter the complaint was filed upon obtaining the sanction order from the appropriate authority.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner stated that no independent witnesses were not examined in the case and only Food Inspector and his Assistant (PW-1 and PW-2) were examined and certain documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution and the consistent case of the prosecution was to the effect that the petitioner and his brother were the partners of the business postulating the existence of a firm and/or company within the meaning of explanation (a) to Section 17(4) of the Act.

4. It was further stated that the Learned Magistrate, without following the procedure laid down for trial of warrant cases, followed the procedure of trial of summons case and thereby without framing a charge in accordance with the provision of Section 211 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, examined the petitioner under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereby the petitioner’s defence was totally prejudiced and the evidence of the witnesses was also recorded summarily causing prejudice to the petitioner.

5. It was further stated that the Central Food Laboratory Report had been stated to be the final opinion determining the case and the Learned Magistrate did not exhibit the same nor it was put to the petitioner during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that point having been taken before the Court of Appeal, the same was illegally ignored by the Learned Judge of the Appeal Court by exhibiting the said Central Food Laboratory Report as Exbt. 17, without examination of any witnesses and the petitioner was examined by the Appeal Court illegally under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure although the Appeal Court did not possess such power under Section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and upon a proper consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case it would be evident that the petitioner was totally prejudiced in his defence.

6. It was further stated that the case of the prosecution postulated that there was a firm of which the petitioner and his brother Lokenath Chakraborty had been the partners and under Section 17 of the Act the firm was required to be impleaded and in absence thereof the entire case should have failed and the petitioner could not be convicted and sentenced as the person responsible for selling or storing the adulterated Dhania.

i. In the instant case, the sanction order not having been given by the appropriate authority in accordance with law and upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned orders of co