The judgment established the importance of complying with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and highlighted the conditions for protection under Section 19(2) of the Act.

1. This criminal petition is directed against the judgment & order dated 28.03.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat, in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2008. By the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment & order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat, in C.R. Case No. 04/2004, whereby the petitioner was convicted u/s. 7/16(1-A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, with default stipulation.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, is that, one Sri P. Banikya, Food Inspector, visited the business establishment of the petitioner, under the name and style “M/s Ghosh Diary”, on 09.08.2004, and purchased 3(three) packets of Sweet Supari of Rakhi Brand for the purpose of taking sample. The said Sweet Supari containing 250 grams in each packets, were packed and sealed as per the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954(hereinafter referred to as ‘PFA Act’), and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955(hereinafter referred to as ‘PFA Rules’) and 1(one) sample was sent to the Public Analyst for examination and the remaining the 2(two) samples were sent to the local Health Authority. The Public Analyst, after examination of the same, submitted report, stating that the sample of the Sweet Supari, a Pan Masala; was adulterated, as it contained synthetic colour which was not permitted to be used. Upon receiving such report, the Food Inspector lodged a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat, and eventually, the present petitioner stood trial for offence u/s. 7/16(1-A)(i) of the PFA Act.

3. In course of trial, the prosecution examined 2(two) witnesses, and the petitioner also examined 1(one) witness as DW-1. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner and awarded sentence; as indicated above.

4. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat, which stood dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment & order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner preferred the instant petition.

5. Mr. S. K. Ghosh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., for the respondent State of Assam, were heard.

6. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the impugned judgment & order, contended that the Sweet Supari, sample of which was taken by the Food Inspector, was not adulterated within the meaning of Section 2 of the PFA Act, and, that the accused purchased the Sweet Supari from the manufacturer ‘M/s Shree Hans Supari Works’ with warranty and as such, the accused/petitioner was protected u/s. 19(2) of the PFA Act. Supporting the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, learned Addl. P.P. submitted, that the report of the Public Analyst clearly established that the food item was adulterated and the petitioner was not able to satisfy the condition for getting the benefit of Section 19(2) of the PFA Act and as such, the impugned judgment requires no interference by this Court.

7. The rival submission of the learned counsel and the materials on record, raises the following 2(two) questions in the present petition:

(i). Whether the food item was adulterated within the meaning of Section 2 of the PFA Act, and

(ii). Whether the petitioner is protected under section 19(2) of the PFA Act.

8. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel, contended, placing reliance on a decision of this Court in Nikhil Chandra Saha v. State of Assam & ors., reported in 2001(3) GLT 56, that prosecution failed to show, by adducing evidence that the food item i.e. Sweet Supari, in the instant case, was injurious to health or that any inferior or cheaper substance was substituted or any prejudice was caused to the purchaser. The decision cited by