The court emphasized the compliance with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the Rules, and discussed the applicability of the FSS Act, highlighting the imposition of fine instead of imprisonment for misbranding.

1. Heard Mr. R. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. for the State/Respondents.

2. In this revision petition, under Section 401, read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. the petitioner, namely, Shri Monoranjan Pathak, has put to challenge the judgment and order, dated 29.03.2008, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 4, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2006. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order, dated 29.03.2008, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 4, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, has affirmed the judgment and order, dated 31.05.2006, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati in Case No. 3508/1999. It is also to be noted here that vide judgment and order, dated 31.05.2006, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, has convicted the petitioner under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

3. The background facts, leading to filing of this revision petition, are briefly stated as under:

“The petitioner was running a bakery in the name and style of M/S A.B. Bakery at Maligaon Chariali. On 15.07.1999, one Naren Ingti had lodged a complaint against the Bakery of the petitioner before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup that on 14.07.1999 he had purchased one Bread from the Bakery of the petitioner and he had detected probable extract of a mouse. Thereafter, on 15.07.1999, Food Inspector - T.K. Barman being accompanied by one Hiren Kalita visited his Bakery and collected three packets of Bread weighing 400 gms as sample for examination after serving Notice to the petitioner in Form No. IV, and after observing all the formalities under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and under the Rules made there under, in presence of witness Hiren Kalita and Naren Ingti. Thereafter, the Food Inspector had sent one part of the sample to the Public Analyst to the Govt. of Assam for examination. After examination of the sample, the Public Analyst submitted the report to the Local Health Authority to the effect that the sample is misbranded as per Section 2 (ix) (k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rule 32(c) of the Prevention of Foor Adulteration Rules. Thereafter, having obtained necessary sanction, to prosecute the petitioner, under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Food Inspector had lodged a Complaint, being Complaint Case No. 3508/1999, against the petitioner to stand trial under the aforesaid sections of law, before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup.

Upon the said complaint the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati had taken cognizance and issued process to the petitioner to appear before it and to stand trial under Sections 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Court below and the learned Court below, then, explained the particular of offence under Sections 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, to the petitioner, to which the petitioner had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the learned trial Court had examined the prosecution witnesses and after closing the evidence, the learned trial court had also examined the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned trial Court had examined the witnesses of the petitioner, and thereafter, hearing arguments of learned Advocates of both sides, convicted the petitioner under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him as aforesaid.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 4, Kamrup, Guwahati and the learned A