Calcutta High Court: In a revision petition challenging the judgment and order by the Additional District and Sessions Judge affirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the revisionists by the Municipal Magistrate for an offense under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act), a single-judge bench comprising of Rai Chattopadhyay,* J., dismissed the revision petition, upholding the judgments of the Magistrate and Additional District and Sessions Judge. The petitioners’ contentions were deemed unconvincing, and the Court emphasised the importance of maintaining the sanctity of the trial process. The petitioners were directed to serve the imposed sentence and pay the fine.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, a written complaint was lodged by the complainant-Food Inspector of Kolkata Municipal Corporation on 14-12-2009, stating that an inspection conducted on 27-10-2009, at the petitioners’ shop/production house revealed adulterated “vanaspati” being used in sweetmeats for human consumption. The complainant followed statutory procedures, including sample collection, sealing, and chemical analysis, and obtained written consent from the Chief Municipal Health Officer for prosecution.
The petitioners were convicted and sentenced under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act with a six-month imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, vide order dated 19-09-2014, affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners by the Municipal Magistrate. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the lower court, the petitioners challenged the same before this Court by preferring present revision petition.
Moot Point
-
Legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence imposed on the revisionists.
-
Validity of the prosecution’s initiation without proper sanction.
-
Applicability of Section 17 of the Act to the accused persons allegedly connected with a proprietorship concern.
-
Failure to establish the connection of the petitioners with the alleged business.
-
Alleged violation of rules of sample collection and seizure.
-
Non-examination of material witnesses by the prosecution.
Petitioners’ Contentions
The petitioners argued that the prosecution lacked proper sanction as required by Section 20 of the Act. While citing CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2014) 14 SCC 295, the petitioners contended that essential documents were not placed before the sanctioning authority and emphasised the need for thorough consideration of relevant materials. It was claimed that section 17, dealing with offences by companies, is wrongly applied, as the accused are connected with a proprietorship concern, not a company.
The petitioners asserted that the prosecution failed to establish the connection of the petitioners with the alleged business, challenging the admissibility of the trade license as evidence. It was argued that the prosecution intentionally withheld material witnesses, such as the Public Analyst and sanctioning authority, creating a fatal gap in the case. The petitioners alleged violation of rules in sample collection and contended that incorrect samples were collected leading to an erroneous chemical analysis report. It was argued that storage of adulterated food not meant for sale or consumption does not constitute an offence under the Act.
Opposite Parties’ Contentions
The prosecution contended that the sanctioning authority had all relevant documents, and the challenge to the sanction lacks merit. The prosecution argued that the petitioners, as the proprietor and person in charge of the business, are liable for offences committed by the business concern. The prosecution opposed the claim that the trade license photocopy is unreliable, emphasising the endorsement of its genuineness by the petitioner. The prosecution argued that evidence, including the chemical analysis report, is credible and sufficient to establish guilt. The prosecution distinguishes the present case from the Supreme Court judgment cited by the defense, asserting that the accused are rightly charged under Section 17.
Court’s Assessment
Issue 1: Sanction for Prosecution
The petitioners contested the authority of the complainant to initiate prosecution, alleging a lack of proper sanction as required by Section 20 of the Act. Reference was made to a CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (Supra) emphasising the importance of placing all relevant materials before the sanctioning authority. However, the Court found no irregularity in the sanction process, and the reference judgment was distinguished as dealing with the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Issue 2: Applicability of Section 17
The petitioners argued that Section 17 of the Act, dealing with offenses by companies, was wrongly applied to individuals connected with a proprietorship concern. The Court rejected this argument, emphasising that for a proprietorship concern, the proprietor and/or person responsible for day-to-day business affairs are liable, citing Raghu Laxminarayan v. Fine Tubes, (2007) 5 SCC 103.
Issue 3: Failure to Establish Connection
The defense claimed that the prosecution failed to establish the connection of the petitioners with the business, citing the non-production of the trade license. The Court held that a photocopy of the trade license, endorsed by the petitioner, was admissible as secondary evidence unless the endorse challenged its genuineness.
“…unless the endorsee has challenged about the genuineness of his signature over the said document or the contentions thereof as a whole, and also if not any prejudice is pleaded due to admission of the said documents as a piece of evidence in the trial, there would be no other impediment in accepting the said document as a valuable evidence.”
Issue 4: Non-Examination of Witnesses
The defense contended that the prosecution intentionally withheld material witnesses. The Court clarified that the prosecution has the prerogative to choose its witnesses and that the evidence of the Food Inspector can be relied upon without corroboration.
“It is not a rule of law that the evidence of the Food Inspector cannot be accepted without corroboration. He is not an accomplice nor he is similar to an attesting witness to a will. The evidence of the Food Inspector alone if believed can be relied on for proving that the samples were taken as required by law. The circumstances of each case will determine the extent of the weight to be given to the evidence of the Food Inspector and what in the opinion of the Court, is the value of his testimony.”
Issue 5: Violation of Sample Collection Rules
The defense argued that a lower amount of sample was collected, leading to an erroneous chemical analysis report. The Court rejected this, emphasising that the quantity collected complied with statutory provisions and cited Rupak Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 4 SCC 277, to support the argument that storage of adulterated food, even not for sale, constitutes an offense.
“any ‘food’ sold for human consumption and if adulterated would come under the purview of this Act. The word ‘food’ and ‘food for sale’, in terms of the said Act would mean and include the necessary ingredients also for preparation of that ‘food’, in case the ‘food for sale’ is required to be firstly prepared and then be sold.”
The Court rejected the defense’s argument on the misapplication of Section 17, distinguishing the facts from the cited judgment. The Court concluded that the cited judgments are not applicable to the present case based on factual distinctions. The Court cited State of Haryana v. Rajmal, (2011) 14 SCC 326, discouraging interference with concurrent findings of facts unless there is a glaring defect or manifest error. The Court upheld the conviction and sentence, finding no substance in the petitioners’ arguments.
Court’s Decision
The Court dismissed the revision petition. upheld the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Municipal Magistrate. The petitioners were ordered to be immediately committed to prison, and the fine was to be recovered.
[Jhuma Ghosh v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 490, order dated 19-01-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Rai Chattopadhyay
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. S.S. Roy, Mr. D.K. Samanta, Mr. B.P. Samanta, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Panabir Roy Chowdhury, Counsel for the State
Mr. Gopal Chandra Das, Mr. Goutam Dinda, Mr. Anindya Sundar Chatterjee, Counsel for the KMC
