Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Aditya Haldar vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 June, 2016
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi C.R.R. 1009 of 1995 Aditya Haldar
-Vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhijit Basu For the State : Mr. Pawan Gupta Heard on : 08.06.2016 Judgement on: 08.06.2016 Joymalya Bagchi, J. :-
Order dated 29th April, 1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bankura affirming judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 18th January, 1995 convicting the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another one month has been assailed.
The prosecution case, as alleged, against the petitioner is to the effect that on 11th December, 1991 at 1:30 P.M. Sri Iswar Chandra Jana, Sub-Divisional Food Inspector, 2 Bishnupur being accompanied by PW2 and PW3 inspected the grocery shop owned by Tribikram Haldar. Petitioner being the brother of the said owner was running the shop. Customers were present in the shop. On demand, Sri Jana disclosed his identity and purchased 1500 gms. of lozenges on payment of Rs.18/-. A sale receipt was duly issued to the petitioner in the presence of witnesses. The lozenges were thereafter, divided into three parts and each part was kept in clean and dry bottle duly sealed and labeled. One such sample was sent to the Public Analyst. The seal was also sent. The Public Analyst analysed the sample and gave a report that the lozenges were adulterated. All papers were placed before the A.C.M.O.H., Bishnupur, local health authority and upon his sanction the prosecution was lodged. In the course of trial the leader of the raiding party, Iswar Chandra Jana was examined as PW1. Other members of the raiding party namely, PW2 and PW3 were also been examined. The notice in Form No. VI, sale receipt, report of the Public Analyst and other documents were exhibited. The courts below on the basis of the aforesaid evidence came to a concurrent finding of guilt. However, the lower Courts acquitted Tribikram Haldar who was alleged to be the owner of the shop as there was no evidence that he was in charge of the shop.
Relying on such acquittal Mr. Bose, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner argued that as the owner of the shop has been acquitted, conviction of the petitioner is unwarranted in law. He further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.
I have considered the materials on record. I find from the evidence that inspection was held in the grocery shop of the petitioner by PW1 being accompanied by PW2 and PW3. Notice was issued upon the petitioner and 1500 gms. of lozenges were purchased. 3
Sale receipts had duly been exhibited. There is no serious challenge to the procedure of search and seizure in the instant case. A faint plea has been raised that no preservatives were used. Opinion of the Public Analyst shows that the sample was not degenerated or spoilt at the time of examination. The courts below have analysed the evidence on record in extenso and I am loathe to interfere with concurrent finding of fact of guilt in exercise of revision. The sanction has also been duly proved and evidence has come on record that all documents and papers were placed before the sanctioning authority who applied his mind thereto prior to grant of sanction.
I am, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to establish that the petitioner was selling lozenges which were adulterated. The report of the Public Analyst has been duly read into evidence and there is no dispute as to the fact that there was adulteration of food item.
Coming to the issue of acquittal of co-accused person I am of the opinion as there was no evidence that he was in charge of the business he was acquitted from the charge. Such reasoning is of no aid to the petitioner as there is consistent and reliable evidence that he was carrying on business and selling adulterated lozenges. Hence, the aforesaid acquittal would have no impact on the conviction of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly, dismissed.
Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.
kd (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
4