The conviction for food adulteration was overturned due to discrepancies in evidence and failure to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.

In Re: CRAN 1 of 2025 and CRAN 2 of 2025

1. Sufficient grounds are available to explain the delay in filing the application for restoration of the matter after recalling of the order of dismissal for default dated 07.01.2019 as such delay is condoned. The Revisional application is restored to its file and number after recalling the order dated 07.01.2019. CRAN 1 of 2025 and CRAN 2 of 2025 are, thus, allowed.

In Re: CRR 1672 of 2001

2. The instant Criminal Revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred by the petitioner, challenging the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 6th July, 2001 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Bankura in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the Learned Judge affirmed the judgment and order dated 09.02.1999 passed by the Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur in case No. 136-C of 1997 under Sections 7 (i)/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short ‘P.F.A. Act’).

3. By the said judgment, the learned Trial Court found the petitioner guilty of committing the offence punishable under Sections 7 (i)/16(1)(a)(i) of the P.F.A. Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of two months.

FACTS OF THE CASE: -

4. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this instant Criminal Revisional application, are as follows: -

a. The petitioner is the co-owner of a mustard oil mill, situated at Ganganidanga, Police Station- Sonamukhi.

b. On 5th April, 1997, around noon, the opposite party no. 2 herein, along with some others, visited the aforesaid oil mill, in the presence of the petitioner for inspection. The petitioner produced the food license for the mill upon being asked to do so.

c. The opposite party no. 2 subsequently served notice for collecting samples in the prescribed form, and filled 3, clean, dry bottles with 125 grams of mustard oil each, and purchased the collected oil for Rs. 12.75/-.

d. Thereafter, one of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst. The report, received on 25th July, 1997, indicated that the mustard oil sample was adulterated with sesame oil. Consequently, the Sub- divisional Food Inspector was directed to take necessary steps.

e. A complaint under sections 7(i)/16(1)(a)(i) of the P.F.A. Act was filed with the Learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur.

f. The prosecution relied upon 3 witnesses to establish its case, namely, Ishwar Ch. Jana (PW 1/Complainant), Gopal Chanda (PW 2/ GDA attached to BPHC), and Goutam Gorai. Apart from that, several exhibited documents, i.e., the sanction order, the report of the public analyst, and that of the Central Food Laboratory (CFL).

g. The Ld. Magistrate, after having considered the material on record, passed a judgment and order dated 9th February, 1999, convicting the petitioner and sentencing him as aforesaid.

h. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1999, before the Learned Sessions Judge, Bankura, wherein the Ld. Judge passed a judgment and order dated 6th July, 2001, affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Ld. Magistrate. Hence, this revisional application.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: -

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the peti