Calcutta High Court: In an appeal against the order of remand the matter to the Municipal Magistrate for reconsideration from the stage under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), and write a fresh judgment, a single-judge bench comprising of Subhendu Samanta,* J., held that direction of the Appellate Court to remand the case before the Magistrate was erroneous. The Court held that when an Appellate Court identifies discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, its primary duty is to acquit the accused, rather than remand the case, especially when such discrepancies are not curable by further proceedings.
Factual Matrix
In the case in hand, the Food Inspector of Kolkata Municipal Corporation registered a criminal case against the petitioner company and others, for the alleged offence under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, related to the misbranding of “Red Label Natural Care Tea.” The Municipal Magistrate convicted the petitioners and sentenced them to 6 months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each, with the default option of 1 month’s simple imprisonment.
Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the City Sessions Court vide order dated 18-06-2018, which set aside the convictions and sentences, but remanded the matter to the Court of Senior Municipal Magistrate for fresh consideration, starting from the examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the CrPC and directed the Magistrate to rewrite the judgment after hearing the parties.
The instant criminal revision petition is preferred under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the CrPC to challenge and quash the order dated 18-06-2018, passed by the District and Sessions Judge.
Moot Point
-
Whether the judgment passed by the Appellate Court suffers from illegality?
-
Whether the remand order by the Appellate Court was justified?
-
Whether the prosecution had established the misbranding of the “Red Label Natural Care Tea” beyond a reasonable doubt?
-
Whether the public analyst’s report was adequately proven and explained during the trial?
-
Whether the labeling of the tea product complied with the provisions of Section 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner contended that the order passed by the Appellate Court is flawed, as it remanded the case despite acknowledging discrepancies and ambiguities in the Municipal Magistrate’s order. It was contended that the case against the petitioner was not proved, and the key prosecution evidence, i.e., the analyst report, was not adequately proven. It was further asserted that the reasons for misbranding were not established during the trial, and, therefore, the Municipal Magistrate should have acquitted the petitioner instead of remanding the case.
The respondent contended that the proceedings before the Municipal Magistrate were conducted sufficiently. It was claimed that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent cited Section 13(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which makes the analyst’s report final and conclusive evidence, and contended that there is no error in the Municipal Magistrate’s judgment. The respondent emphasized that packaging and labeling of food should confirm to Section 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the petitioner company did not comply, resulting in a violation.
Court’s Assessment
The Court observed that the allegations against the petitioner pertained to the misbranding of “Red Label Natural Care Tea” under Rule 38 and 39 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The public analyst’s report indicated a violation of these rules, but the analyst was not produced by the prosecution to support his opinion and additionally, the reasons for misbranding were not adequately explained during the trial. The Court, hence, held that the prosecution failed to establish the misbranding of the “Red Label Natural Care Tea” beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court observed that Section 13(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, deems the opinion and certificate signed by the Director of Central Laboratory Food as final and conclusive evidence. However, this provision does not apply to the public analyst, and their report must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted the absence of the analyst’s explanation in the Court and a lack of opportunity for cross-examination.
The Court also held that the prosecution had not adequately demonstrated a violation of Section 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 regarding packaging and labeling of food products.
In such circumstances, the Court observed that while the Appellate Court correctly identified discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, the decision to remand the case back to the Magistrate, instead of acquitting the accused in light of these discrepancies, was erroneous.
The Court held that when an Appellate Court identifies discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, the appropriate action is to acquit the accused, as remanding the case may allow the prosecution to cure defects that could prejudice the accused.
Conclusion:
The Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court which set aside the judgment and sentence by the Senior Municipal Magistrate. The Court found the petitioners not guilty of the alleged offense and acquitted them in the case.
[Hindusthan Unilever Ltd. v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3110, order dated 27-09-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Subhendu Samanta
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Mr. Anirban Dutta, Mr. Abhijit Chaudhury, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Imran Ali, Ms. Debjani Sahu, Counsel for the State
Mr. Gautam Dinha and Mr. Anindyasundar Chatterjee, Counsel for the KMC
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
