IMPORTANT POINT
Clear evidence of health risks is essential for conviction under food adulteration laws, and procedural compliance is critical for upholding such convictions.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. The instant revisional application has been filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura on 31st day of January, 1996 in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1994 upholding the order and judgment of conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 1 month for offence under Sections 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Bishnupur in Case No. 102C of 1992 (C.R. Case No. 102/92) /(T.R. No. 11 of 1993).

2. The complainant, on inspection of the sweet meat shop situated at Patrasayar Bazar, Bishnupur, on 06.06.1992 at about 12 noon, purchased 1.5 kg of sweet meat ‘Kamala Bhog’ under proper receipt and segregated the same in three bottles as samples which were analyzed by the Public Analyst who opined the same to be adulterated.

3. The complaint of the Food Inspector was the basis of the CR case no.102 of 1992 by TR no. 11 of 1993.

4. The prosecution examined 4 witnesses and exhibited certain documents. The defence cited 3 defence witnesses.

5. The Second Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur, convicted the accused under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced the same to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.

6. An appeal was preferred against such order of conviction which was dismissed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Bankura on 31st day of January, 1996 in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 1994, confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Second Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur as aforesaid.

7. Considered the rival contentions of the Learned Advocates for the petitioner as well as the State.

8. Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act states as follows:-

2. Definitions.— In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

[(i) “adulterant” means any material which is or could be employed for the purposes of adulteration;]

[(ia)] “adulterated”—an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated—

(a) if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be;

(b) if the article contains any other substance which affects, or if the article is so processed as to affect, injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;

(c) if any inferior or cheaper substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;

(d) if any constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;

(e) if the article had been prepared, packed or kept under insanitary conditions whereby it has become contaminated or injurious to health;

(f) if the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, 5 *** rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption;

(g) if the article is obtained from a diseased animal;

(h) if the article contains any poisonous or other ingredient which renders it injurious to health;

(i) if the container of the article is composed, whether wholly or in part, of any poisonous or deleterious substance which renders its contents injurious to health; [(j) if any colouring matter other than that prescribed in respect thereof is present in the article, or if the amounts of the prescribed colouring matter which is present in the article are not within the prescribed limits of variability;]

(k) if the article contains any prohibited preservative or permitted preservative in excess of the prescribed limits;

[(l) if the quality or