IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that newer, beneficial legal provisions can apply to pending cases, allowing for reduced penalties for past offenses.

JUDGMENT :

(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.) :

1. The present application arises out of a proceeding under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short Act) where the present petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Act by the Ld. Municipal Magistrate, 4th Court, in connection with Case No. 11D of 1994. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer imprisonment for a further period of one month.

2. The appeal of the appellant against the order of conviction and sentence by the Trial Court was dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bench-II, City Sessions Court in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2002 vide judgement and order dated 31.03.2015. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of conviction the present petition has been preferred with a prayer for setting aside of the same under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C).

Background:

3. Brief facts leading to this present application are that on 31.03.1994 the Food Inspector/opposite party no. 2 herein attached to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (for short KMC) inspected the shop of the accused/petitioner and purchased 9 packets of chili powder of Double Star brand containing 50 gms. of chili powder in each packet. Thereafter, he divided the said packets of chili powder in 3 equal parts and sent one part of the sample to public analyst for examination. After proper examination, the public analyst opined that the said chili powder is mis-branded and the sample did not confirm to the prescribed standard hence it was adulterated. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 herein obtained written consent of the Chief Municipal Health Officer of the KMC to initiate prosecution against the accused and filed a complaint under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Act. The said complaint came up for trial before the Ld. Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta and on conclusion of trial the Ld. Magistrate found the accused guilty for committing offence under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Act and convicted and sentenced him accordingly. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction an appeal was filed by the petitioner herein which was then heard by the then Additional District and Sessions Judge, 9th Fast Track Court, Calcutta which was disposed of on merit as none of the parties appeared and participated in hearing of the said appeal. After disposal of the said appeal the appellant moved this Court against the said order in Revision and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to set aside the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 9th Fast Track Court, Calcutta and remanded back the appeal for disposal of the same after giving opportunity to both the parties which was then disposed of by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bench-II, City Sessions Court after proper hearing. On 31.03.2015 the Ld. Judge passed the order impugned which has been challenged in this present application.

4. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the Food Inspector did not comply with the proper procedure in collection of sample of chilli powder as provided Section 11(1) (b) of the Act and sending the same to the public analyst.

5. Mr. Chakraborty further contended that the petitioner is not a manufacturer of Double Star Brand chilli powder and he only procured the same, which was duly licenced in the name of the manufacturer and during course of trial he produced the bill of the product and therefore he his protected under Section 19(2) of the Act. Mr. Chakraborty further added that as the petitioner is a vendor, he is protected under Section 19(2) of the Act and as per Section 20(A) of the Act the manufacturer ought to have been tried for the offence, if any, committed.

6. Before parting with, Mr. Chakraborty alternatively, has