This revision petition under section 401 of the CrPC arises against the judgment and order dated 15.7.1992 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat in CR Case No.8 of 1989 convicting the present petitioner Sri Sibanath Singh for the offence punishable under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for storing and selling 'Laddu' coloured with prohibited coal tar colour metanil yellow and sentencing the accused-petitioner to undergo RI for 6 (six) months and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to suffer further RI for 2 months as well as the impugned judgment dated 16.3.1993 passed by the learned /j Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1992 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. The facts of the prosecution case in a short compass are as follows.

2. A complaint was lodged by one Food Inspector, Jorhat stating that he had collected sample of 'Laddu' from the accused-petitioner after due compliance of required legal formalities and the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who in turn analysed the sample and sent a report with the opinion that the sample of 'Bundiya Laddu' contains non-permitted coal-tar colour metanil yellow and accordingly, the sanction was accorded by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jorhat to prosecute the vendor namely, the present petitioner as well as the owner of the hotel namely, Sri Biswanath Singh.

3. Upon hearing the parties, the learned trial Court found the present accused-petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and, acquitted the owner of the hotel Sri Biswanath Singh under the impugned judgment and order dated 15.7.1992. Hence, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate Court and the first appellate Court also did not interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court c thus, affirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court and, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 16.3.1993 passed by the learned first appellate Court, the petitioner herein preferred this criminal revision.

4. At the very outset, Mrs B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Courts below had misappreciated rather misconceived the provisions of law laid down under section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, herein after referred to as the Act of 1954 inasmuch as, the petitioner has not been served a copy of the report of the result of Analysis and he has not been informed that if he desires so, he may make an application to the Court within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get sample of the article (Laddu) kept by the Local Health Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory at any point of time and, apart from it, the owner of the hotel namely, Sri Biswanath Singh was acquitted from the case and poor innocent employee of the hotel, like the accused-petitioner herein has been convicted and sentenced under the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below. At the hearing, Mr. Das, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the Local Health Authority concerned had issued necessary notice and letter and the same was served to the petitioner as well as to the owner of the hotel namely, Sri Biswanath Singh and the same was duly received by the petitioner as well as the said owner of the hotel but, they did not apply to the Court within the prescribed period of 10 (ten) days as required under section 13 (2) of the Act of 1954. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the postal receipt marked as Ext 11 and the AD card marked as Ext 12 show that the related notice/office letter dated 10.1.1989 issued by the Local Health Authority as required under section 13 (2) of the Act of 1954 was properly served to the petitioner and he has been duly inform

Click Here to Read the rest of this document