The judgment emphasized the importance of placing all relevant materials before the sanctioning authority, the liability of individuals in a proprietorship concern, and the sufficiency of evidence in proving guilt under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

JUDGMENT :

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

1. In this revision, the revisionists have challenged the judgment and order dated September 19, 2014, of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bench-II, City Sessions Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta, delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2013. In the said appeal the judgment and order dated July 31, 2013, of the Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, 3rd Court at Calcutta, in Case No. 14D of 2009, was challenged. The present revisionists have been held convicted and were sentenced by the Magistrate for an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. They were directed to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which they were to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of ten days. The Magistrate’s order as above, has been affirmed and upheld by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, in the impugned judgment, as mentioned above.

2. This revisional Court is required to adjudicate regarding the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and sentence, imposed upon the present revisionists, initially by the Magistrate and later on affirmed by the First Appellate Court.

3. Written complaint was lodged by the Food Inspector, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, on December 14, 2009, in the Court of the Metropolitan and Municipal Magistrate, Kolkata. He has stated therein inter-alia that, on October 27, 2009, an inspection was held by him at the shop/production house of the present revisionists. Allegedly stored article, namely “vanaspati” was found there, which did not tally with the standard food safety criteria. Allegedly also, the said adulterated/contaminated article was being used for the preparation of sweetmeats, for human consumption. The present petitioner No. 1 was introduced as the owner of the shop/production house and the present petitioner No. 2 was described to the complainant as the employee/attendant of the said shop, responsible for the day to day affairs of the business run by the petitioner No. 1. After discovery of the alleged adulterated “vanaspati” the statutory formalities were followed up like collection of samples, sealing of samples, seizure of the samples and sending the samples for chemical analysis. The complainant has stated in the said complaint that 750 grams of “vanaspati” was collected and seized. A part thereof was sent for chemical analysis to the Public Analyst. Rest of the seized article was sent to the Chief Municipal Health Officer. Further, according to the complainant, the chemical analysis report of the seized article (sample) duly endorsed the same to be an adulterated article, not fit for human consumption. The complainant, in the said complaint has further stated that the entire relevant documents and his report was submitted before the respective authority, that is, the Chief Municipal Health Officer of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, who has given a written consent for initiation of prosecution against the present revisionists. Pursuant to the same, the said complaint was lodged before the Municipal Magistrate. The complainant has been examined in the trial as PW-2 and the said complaint dated December 14, 2009, has been exhibited and marked as “Exhibit-12.” The other witness examined was an Assistant to the Chief Municipal Health Officer, who has been examined as PW-1, in the trial. Several documents have also been exhibited, in the trial.

4. Mr. Roy has put forth challenge to the impugned judgment of confirmation of conviction and sentence of the present revisionists, on several counts. Firstly the very authority of the complainant, to initiate prosecution against the present revisionists has been challenged. It has been submitted that a sanction in due compliance with the statutory provision would be the sine-qua-non for initiation of prosecution, which cannot be said to have been obtained in a manner as prescribed. That, there has been a comple