Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nur Islam Biswas vs State Of West Bengal on 19 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao
CRR No. 1741 of 1993
Nur Islam Biswas
Versus
State of West Bengal
Mr. Kiran Shekh
Mr. Saikat Samanta
.....For the Petitioner.
Mr. Arindam Sen
Mr. Asif Dewan
.....For the State.
Hearing Concluded On : 21.11.2025
Judgment On : 19.12.2025
Krishna Rao, J.:
1. The petitioner has filed the present revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Nadia, dated 7th August, 2 1993, in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1993 upholding the order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner, and the judgment passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia in Trial No. 1 of 1992 in connection with Case no. 582-C of 1991, dated 18th May, 1993 wherein the Learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 16(1-A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2. The Local Health Authority, Sadar Sub-Division, Nadia and the Assistant Chief Medical Officer (Health), Krishnanagar (Sadar), Nadia, has filed a complaint before the Learned Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Nadia, being Case No. 582-C of 1991 in Trial No. 1 of 1992 against the petitioner, namely, Nur Islam Biswas for the offence under Section 16(1A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 25th September, 1991 at about 11 A.M., the Sub-Divisional Food Inspector attached to the Office of the Assistant Chief Medical Officer (Health) and Local Health Authority Krishnanagar, Nadia along with his Peon, Shri Mohan Ghosh have visited the shop of the accused at Maliapota wherein the accused sells biscuits and lozenges from his shop. He suspected the genuineness of colouring hard boiled sugar sold from the shop of the accused. The accused stored colouring hard boiled sugar (lozenges) in his shop for sale to different customers for human consumption. Immediately, he has disclosed his identity to the accused and purchased one kilogram of colouring hard 3 boiled sugar from the shop of the accused on payment of Rs. 12.50 p. and obtained receipt in presence of two witnesses, namely, Rejaul Mondal and Mohan Ghosh.
4. The Sub-Divisional Food Inspector served a notice under Form-VI under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to the petitioner and the petitioner acknowledged the same in presence of the witnesses. Then he divided the purchased 1 kg colouring hardboiled sugar into three parts in three (3) clean, dry and empty containers and sealed the same with labels and identification marks in presence of witnesses and the petitioner and also obtained signatures of the petitioner and witnesses. One of the sample containers with the copy of Form-VII duly filled sent to Public Analyst, Nadia for chemical examination and other two samples along with Form- VII duly filled sent to the Local Health Authority. The Local Health Authority received report of the Public Analyst and after considering the records, papers and documents relating to the instant case has filed a complaint before the Learned Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia, against the petitioner for the offence under Section 16 (1A)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
5. To prove the case, altogether 4 (Four) witnesses were examined by the complainant, namely:
i. Shri Satyendra Nath Sen .... P.W.1 (Sub-Divisional Food Inspector) ii. Dr. Krishnapada Das .... P.W.2 (Local Health Authority-cum -Assistant Chief Medical Officer) 4 iii. Shri Mohan Ghosh .... P.W.3 (General Duty Attendant) iv. Shri Rejaul Mondal .... P.W.4 (Independent Witness)
6. The complainant has exhibited altogether 14 documents and one material exhibit which are as follows:
Exhibit - 1: Copy of the receipt issued by the shop-keeper (accused) for the purchase of Rs.12.50 made by the complainant.
Exhibit- 1/2: Signature of the Sub-Divisional Food Inspector on the receipt.
Exhibit - 2: Copy of a notice under Form No. VI under P.F.A. Act, issued by the complainant upon the accused.
Exhibit- 2/1: Signatures of the accused
(petitioner).
Exhibit- 2/2: Signature of the Sub-Divisional Food Inspector on the notice served upon the accused.
Exhibit - 3: A report regarding collection of food sample from the accused which was prepared by the complainant.
Exhibit - 4: Copy of Form No. VII duly filled by the complainant.
Exhibit - 5: Copy of specimen impression seal prepared by the complainant.
Exhibits - 6 and 7: The Two receipts granted by the Office of the Public Analyst which were filled by Arun Chakraborty, Assistant to the Public Analyst and also signed by him, are marked and exhibited together.5
Exhibit - I: One of the sample container which was deposited with Local Health Authority.
Exhibit - 8: The signature of the accused-seller on the sample containers.
Exhibit - 9: Label pasted on the sample-container was filled in by the Sub-Divisional Food Inspector under his signature.
Exhibit- 9/3: Signature of the Sub-Divisional Food Inspector on label of the sample bottle.
Exhibit - 10: Copy of the complaint under Section 16(1-A)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Exhibit - 10/1: Signature of the Sub-Divisional Food Inspector on the complaint copy.
Exhibit - 11: Copy of the report of the Public Analyst, Nadia.
Exhibit - 12: Copy of an intimation sent to the accused by the complainant, which was filled by the Sub-Divisional Food Inspector with signature.
Exhibit - 13: Copy of a postal receipt of the intimation sent by the complainant to the accused.
Exhibit - 14: Acknowledgment Card with the endorsement of the accused.
7. The P.W.1. has categorically stated that on 25th September, 1991 at about 11 A.M., he visited the shop of the petitioner and suspected the genuineness of the colouring hardboiled sugar stored by the petitioner in his shop for sale to different consumers for human consumption. He immediately disclosed his identity and purchased 1 kg of colouring hard 6 boiled sugar from the shop of the petitioner on payment of Rs. 12.50 p. under the proper receipt in presence of P.W.3 and P.W.4. The receipt is marked as Exhibit-1. He served notice upon the petitioner in Form No. VI of the Act and the petitioner has acknowledged the receipt and the said receipt is marked as Exhibit-2 and the signatures of the petitioner is marked as Exhibit-2/1. During his evidence, he has categorically stated about the procedure, how he has sealed and packed the colouring hardboiled sugar. As per his evidence, out of three containers and filled Form-VII, the witness has sent one container along with Form-VII to the Public Analyst for obtaining report and two container along with Form sent to the P.W.2. He has identified all the documents and signatures upon the documents and the same were exhibited without any objection.
8. P.W.2. is the Local Health Authority and the complainant who has filed regular complaint before the Learned Magistrate after receipt of report from the Public Analyst. In his evidence, he has categorically sated that on receipt of report he perused the record, papers and documents and prepared complaint in the printed form which was duly filled by the Sub- Divisional Food Inspector on his instructions and he filed the same before the Learned Court for prosecuting the petitioner for the Offence under Section 16(1A)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The complaint is marked as Exhibit-10. He also stated that the report of Public Analyst, Nadia, was sent to the petitioner informing the petitioner that the petitioner can seek further analyst of the impugned materials from the Director of Food Laboratory, if he required. The Analyst Report is 7 marked as Exhibit-11. The intimation sent to the petitioner is marked as Exhibit-12.
9. P.W.3. is the General Duty Attendant to the office of the P.W.2. He has corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the independent witness of the case. In his evidence, he has stated that the petitioner is running a stationary shop at Maliapota. On 25th September, 1991, the Sub- Divisional Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner and purchased lozenges from the shop of the petitioner and prepared sample and duly sealed the same. He admitted that he has signed in some papers regarding preparation of sample and issuance of notice to the petitioner. His signatures are marked as Exhibits- 1/2, 2/2 and 9/3.
10. On 4th September, 1992, charge was framed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 16(1A)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The petitioner has cross-examined the witnesses. The petitioner has taken the defence during cross-examination of the witness that the colouring hard boiled sugar and lozenge are not the same and identical, the P.W.1 has not issued any notice for visiting the shop of the petitioner, the petitioner has not sold any red coloured hard boiled sugar, the petitioner is not given any opportunity to explain the nature and quality of the coloured hard boiled sugar, the report of Public Analyst is not connected with the instant case and no sufficient quantity of hard boiled sugar was sent for Public Analyst.
8
11. The petitioner has taken a further defence that no sanction from the competent authority was obtained to initiate case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 16(1-A)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
12. This Court finds that the P.W.2 is the Local Health Authority. As per Notification issued by the Government of West Bengal, Department of Health and Family Welfare dated 18th December, 1986, the Assistant Chief Medical Officer (Sadar) of each Revenue District is appointed as Local (Health) Authority. The complainant/ the P.W.2 himself is Assistant Chief Medical Officer, Krishnanagar, Sadar. In his evidence, he has categorically stated that on receipt of Public Analyst Report and after perusing all documents and materials, he has filed the complaint against the petitioner for the offence under Section 16(1A)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, thus question of further sanction is not necessary.
13. P.W.4 who is the independent witness of the locality and during his examination-in-chief, he has stated that he knows petitioner, he identified the petitioner in Court and also admitted that the petitioner is running stationary shop. In his evidence, he has further stated that the Food Inspector visited the shop and purchased lozences from the shop of the petitioner and prepared sample and served notice upon the petitioner. He has also identified his signatures in the documents. During cross- examination, he turn hostile by saying that he has put his signature on the papers in his room and he do not know anything. This Court considered the evidence of P.W.4 and finds that during his examination- 9 in-Chief, he has stated the prosecution case, which corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3. Thus mere in cross-examination, the P.W.4 has stated otherwise will not affect the case of the prosecution.
14. Considering the above, this Court did not find any illegality either in the judgment passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia in Case No. 582-C of 1991, Trial No.1 of 1992 dated 18th May, 1993 or in the judgment passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Nadia in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1993 dated 7th August, 1993.
15. C.R.R. No. 1741 of 1993 is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia within two (2) weeks from date to serve the sentence. If the petitioner failed to surrender before the Learned Magistrate, the Learned Magistrate is directed to take appropriate steps for arrest of the petitioner.
16. Trial Court record be immediately sent back along with the copy of this Judgment.
Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.
Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Krishna Rao, J.)