IMPORTANT POINT
The failure to comply with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, vitiates the trial and denies the accused a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence against them.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Neog, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. These two criminal revision petitions are taken up together for its final disposal.

2. The present applications under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. are filed assailing impugned judgment and order dated 21.07.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup in CR case No. 1442/1996 convicting the accused petitioners under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentencing the petitioner No. 1, accused company to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and the other accused persons to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months. The further challenge is impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 1, Kamrup in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 46/2003 dismissing the appeals and upholding and affirming the judgment and order dated 21.07.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as recorded hereinabove.

3. The brief fact leading to the filing of these present case can be summarised as follows:

(I) The CR Case No. 1442/1996 was registered against the Nestor Nutrition’s Pvt. Ltd. company and its Director, namely, Sri Satyakam Kashyap, Smt. Veena Kashyap, Sri Utpal Goswami and one Sri Nalin Chandra Das, who was a Chemist of Nutrition’s Pvt. Company. The learned trial court i.e. the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup on the basis of offence report dated 27.08.1996 filed by one Pradip Chandra Saikia, Regional Food Inspector, Office of the Joint Director of Health Services, Barpeta, registered the CR case.

(II) It was alleged in the said report that the offence was committed under Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1954) for selling, storing and manufacturing for sale of Ice-Cream which has been found to be not conformed to the standards vide analysis report of the Public Analyst, Government of Assam, Guwahati dated 10.07.1996.

(III) The learned trial court issued process and on appearance of the accused persons, the learned court below explained the particulars of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act, 1954 to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(IV) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined two witnesses i.e. the Regional Food Inspector as PW1 and one Lakshmi Kanta Das, peon of the office of the Joint Director of Health Services, Barpeta as PW2 and exhibited as many as 30 documents and two parts of samples as material exhibits 1 and 2.

(V) After completion of the trial, the accused petitioner and four others were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence examined two witnesses, namely, Sri Nalin Chandra Das and the chemist of the company and another accused, namely, Satyakam Kashyap, who is Director of the accused company. PW3 exhibited three documents as Ext. K, Kh and G.

(VI) After completion of the trial and after analysis of the evidence, the learned trial court found the accused guilty of commission of offence under Section 7/16 of the Act, 1954 and sentenced them as recorded hereinabove.

(VII) Being aggrieved, the company and its Director preferred Criminal Appeal No. 45/2003 before the learned Additional District and Session Judge (FTC) No. 1, Kamrup. The other accused, who is the Chemist preferred a separate appeal, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 46/2003.

(VIII) The learned Session Judge, (FTC) No. 1, Kamrup by a common judgment and order dated 19.09.2009 dismissed both the appeals and upheld the conviction passed by the learned trial court. Being aggrieved, these two sets of revision petitions are preferred. Criminal Revision Petition 396/2009 is preferred by the Company and its Director and