SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

Leave granted.

2.

The present appeal arises out of a proceeding under the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’)

where the present appellant no.1, its partners appellant no.2

and Amit Kumar Sarkar, were charged under Section

16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act and were convicted

by the Trial court. Appellant no.2 and Amit Kumar Sarkar

were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period

of six months along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, whereas

appellant no.1 was directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-.

Digitally signed by

Deepak Singh

Date: 2024.03.07

17:45:42 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

3.

The appeal of the appellants against the order of conviction

and sentence by the Trial Court was dismissed by the

District and Sessions Judge but the conviction of Amit

Kumar Sarkar, the third accused in the case, was set aside

and he was acquitted. In Revision proceedings, the High

Court of Calcutta though upheld the concurrent findings of

conviction but reduced the sentence of appellant no.2 from

6 months to 3 months simple imprisonment.

4.

Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on 06.12.2000, a

food inspector while inspecting the shop/godown of the

appellants at 71, Biplabi Rash Behari Basu Road, Calcutta

took samples of some sugar boiled confectionaries, which

were kept for sale and for human consumption. After

payment, the food inspector purchased 1500 grams of sugar

boiled confectionery contained in three packets of 500 grams

each, and as per due process sent the samples for

examination in a laboratory. The public analysis/Lab report

shows that the food articles were not adulterated, but it said

that the packets did not show the prescribed particulars

such as complete address of the manufacturer and the date

of manufacturing. Thus, there was violation of Rule 32(c)

3

and (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955

(for short ‘Rules’). In view of these findings, the inspector

filed a complaint before the Trial Court under Section

16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act.

5.

The plea of the appellants before the Trial Court was that

they had not manufactured the food articles, instead Bose

Confectionary, Calcutta had manufactured these items. All

the same, the appellants could not show any valid proof of

their contention and thus, the Trial Court and the Appellate

Court (as well as the Revisional Court) did not accept this

contention raised by the appellants. The appellant stood

convicted of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with

Section 7 of the Act and appellant no.2 was sentenced to

undergo 3 months simple imprisonment along with fine.

While appellant no.1 was sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.2,000/-.

6.

Before this Court, learned Counsel for the appellants would

argue that the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be

dismissed for the simple reason that the appellants were

charged under Rule 32 (c) and (f) of the Rules but these

4

provisions were not related to misbranding and were

regarding something else.

7.

All the same, this contention is totally misconceived

inasmuch on the date of occurrence i.e., 06.12.2000 when

the samples were taken, the provisions which were

applicable were Rule 32 (c) and (f) only (as the Rules had

been amended vide G.S.R 422(E) dated 29.04.1987), and

Rule 32 as per the Gazette Notification reads as under :-

“32. Package of food to carry a label: --

(a) …………

(b) …………

(c) The name and complete address of

the manufacturer or importer or

vendor or packer.

(d) ………..

(e) ………..

(f) The month and year in which the

commodity

is

manufactured

or

prepacked.”

Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant regarding non-applicability of the provision is not

correct. There are concurrent findings of three Courts below

and there is absolutely no question of us having any

measure of doubt as to the findings, inasmuch as that the

packets which were taken from shop/godown of the

5

appellants were