IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT: The Hon’ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj And The Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray GA 10 of 1992 The State of West Bengal Vs. Rajen Ghosh For the State : : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P. Mr. Parthapratim Das, Adv. Mrs. Manasi Roy, Adv. Heard On : 30.06.2025 Judgment Delivered On : 30.06.2025 Apurba Sinha Ray, J. :- 1. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 23.09.1988 at about 4.30p.m, Shri M. Chattopadhyay, Sub-Divisional Food Inspector, Malda (Sadar) had drawn a sample of 600 grms of Chhana (cow milk) at a price of Rs. 15/- from the accused’s itinerary vendor while he was vending chhana at Ratua bus stand. After all formalities, the sample was sent to public analyst on 26.09.1988 and the report disclosed that sample was adulterated as it did not confirm the specification of chhana. 2 2. After taking consent from the concerned authority, a complaint was filed before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda on the basis of the analysis report and charge was framed against the accused person under section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The prosecution has examined altogether 3 witnesses to prove its case. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda found him guilty vide order and judgment dated 29.06.1991 in case of 677/C/1988. Aggrieved by the order of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda, the accused person preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions, Malda. 3. The Learned Court of Sessions Judge found that the authority did not apply its mind before granting sanction. The court relied upon a case law of Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1979 SC 677, where Supreme Court observed that the Court shall see whether at the time of sanction, the sanctioning authority was at all aware of the facts constituting the offence and applied its mind or not. M.Chattapadhyay, Sub-divisional Food Inspector, was the Complainant but he did not put his signature on the petition of complaint. The signature was put by Dr. Kundu, A.C.M.O (Malda). Dr. Kundu, signed the printed form only, without applying his mind as he deposed that he was not present at the time of drawing sample. In fact, he did not read the complaint. Had he read the complaint, he would have seen that the accused was detained on the road and not from his shop or godown or manufacturing unit. An itinerary vending unit cannot be a shop. Moreover, in the petition of complaint it was stated that the food was adulterated or misbranded but this case is a case of adulteration of chhana, not misbranding of chhana. A.C.M.O (Malda) simply did not apply his mind at the time of granting sanction. Thus, prosecution failed to prove its case. 3 4. By judgment and order dated 25.02.1992, the accused person, namely, Rajen Ghosh was found not guilty under section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and he was acquitted from all the charges of the case. 5. Challenging the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal on 20.08.1992. In spite of service, the respondent remained unrepresented, and as such, the matter is taken up for disposal on its merits. 6. The Trial Court, after compliance with necessary formalities, recorded an order of acquittal which is under challenge before this Hon'ble Court. In spite of service, the respondent is unrepresented, and hence, the matter is taken up for disposal on merits. 7. In our view, it will not prejudice the respondent even if the service is dispensed with after taking into consideration all materials available on the record and in view of the order that we propose to pass. 8. We have heard the Learned Public Prosecutor who argues in favour of the appeal and points out some infirmities in the order of the Trial Judge. 9. This court, however, is not convinced with the arguments advanced on behalf of the State since, according to us, the order of acquittal has been recorded by the Learned Trial Judge upon consideration of all the materials placed before him. 10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time immemorial and recently in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2025 SCC Online, SC 176, We do not 4 think there is any scope for interference by this Hon'ble Court as the impugned judgment and order seems to be justified and reasonable. 9. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is, thus, dismissed. No order as to costs. I Agree. (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) (APURBA SINHA RAY, J.)