When evidence from different laboratories on food adulteration conflicts, prosecution cannot proceed without clear, reliable evidence; inconsistencies create reasonable doubt for acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. This instant Criminal Revisional application has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 397 /401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 11.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2011 thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bankura on 14.12.2010 in Complaint Case No. 138C of 2004 under Section 16 (1)A read with Section 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more.

2. The factual matrix of the instant case leading to filing of this application is as under:

2a. The petitioner was an employee of an Oil Mill owned by Mahesh Sharma, since deceased. On 07.04.2004, the informant A.C.M.O.H., Bankura (Sadar) visited the commercial shop of Mahesh Sharma at Barjora, Bankura. The said Mahesh Sharma, being the sole proprietor of M/s. M.K. Oil & Flour Mill was carrying on the business of manufacturing Mustard Oil and selling the same through his employee, Dipak Kedia, the petitioner herein. The said complainant had purchased mustard oil from the shop for testing. The Public Analyst declared the said oil as adulterated due to presence of rice bran oil in its report. Accordingly, a case was started against Mahesh Sharma, the owner and his employee, Dipak Kedia, the petitioner herein on the basis of written complaint by the A.C.M.O.H., local Health Authority of Bankura.

2b. On the basis of said complaint, accused persons were summoned by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bankura, where they were released on bail. The case of the petitioner is that there was no any adulteration on the mustard oil. As such, the accused persons made a prayer before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to send the same sample of mustard oil to Central Food Laboratory for chemical examination. The report was received from the Central Food Laboratory where it was branded the oil adulterated though report varied and found anomalies with the report of Public Analyst. The Public Analyst’s report showed Bellier Test Temperature as normal being 25.5C but the Central Food Laboratory revealed it was 28.3C.Not only that, the Public Analyst Report showed test for Rice Bran Oil as positive but the Central Food Laboratory Report categorically showed the same being negative and absent.

2c. During pendency of the said case, Mahesh Sharma, the owner of M/s. M.K. Oil & Flour Mill expired as such his case has been filed for ever but case continued with regards to the petitioner and finally the learned Court below, after appreciation of evidence, passed judgment holding the petitioner found guilty under Section 16 (1)A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 7 (1) of the said Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more. The said judgment and order had been challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura being Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2011 but the said appeal has been dismissed on 11.12.2012 by the learned Judge and affirmed the conviction and sentenced. The appellant-petitioner was directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within one month to server out the sentence.

2d. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of dismissal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura, the present petitioner filed this rev