IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR CRR 1922 OF 2022 CRAN 1 OF 2022 ASHOK AGARWAL -VS- THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. For the Petitioner : Mr. Anirban Mitra, Mr. Santanu Chatterjee, Mr. Amit Roy For the Opposite Party No. 2 / KMC : Mr. Kushal Kumar Mukherjee For the State : Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee Reserved on : 02.09.2026 Pronounced on : 28.09.2026 UDAY KUMAR, J.: – 1. In this revisional application filed under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, this court is called upon to dissect the entire matrix of facts, probe the legality of concurrent findings, and rectify the patent illegalities, perversities, and improprieties manifest in the appellate judgment and order dated May 31, 2022, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bench II, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014, which 2 CRR 1922 OF 2022 upheld the conviction and sentence dated January 17, 2014, passed by the Learned Senior Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta in Case No. 1D/08. 2. The genesis of the present criminal proceeding dates back to September 28, 2007, when a team of raiding officers led by Food Inspector Ranjan Dutta (examined during trial as P.W.-2), accompanied by his assistant Tapas Sen (examined as P.W.-3), conducted a routine inspection at M/s. Gujrati Hindu Hotel situated at premises Nos. 7/A, 7/C, and 7/G, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sarani, in Kolkata, for the purpose of checking the quality of food being served to the consuming public. During this inspection, the officers noticed a container of cooking fat called Prasad Premium Vanaspati, manufactured by M/s. Swastik Refinery Private Limited, and decided to test its purity by drawing a formal sample of about 750 grams from the 15 kg tin container, dividing it into three glass bottles, sealing them properly, and sending one counterpart to the Public Analyst in West Bengal. 3. Following the chemical examination, the Public Analyst submitted analytical report no. JP/34/2007, declaring the product "adulterated" under Section 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act, 1954, solely on the ground that the melting point of the sample was 42.4°C, marginally exceeding the then-prescribed upper statutory limit of 41°C. Thus, a tiny variation of just over one degree in melting point became the entire factual foundation for a criminal case. 4. Upon receipt of the Public Analyst's report, the matter was processed through administrative channels, culminating in the grant of written consent by the Chief Municipal Health Officer (CMHO) / Local Health 3 CRR 1922 OF 2022 Authority under Section 20 of the PFA Act to institute a criminal prosecution. Consequently, a formal complaint was lodged in 2008 before the Learned Municipal Magistrate at Calcutta, registering Case No. 1D/08, wherein twelve co-accused persons, including the corporate entity, its production manager, and multiple directors, were summoned to face trial under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sections 7 and 17 of the PFA Act, 1954. The present petitioner, Sri Ashok Agarwal, was one among them as Accused No. 10. 5. Admittedly, Mr. Agarwal was never a factory manager, a chemist, or an operator involved in the physical manufacture or processing of edible oils; rather, he was a professional Chartered Accountant whose exclusive domain was to look after the company’s financial accounts, books, and tax matters, having zero connection to the manufacturing floor or quality control oversight. Furthermore, the manufacturing company of the said ‘Vanaspati’, M/s. Swastik Refinery Pvt. Ltd. had strictly complied with the law, by placing on active record with the Local Health Authority a designated "Nominated Person" specifically their Production Manager, Sri Ashok Roy under Section 17 of the PFA Act as early as June 30, 2003, to take full legal responsibility for any quality issues regarding the said product. 6. During the ensuing trial before the Learned Senior Municipal Magistrate, the statutory right under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act was invoked to send a preserved counterpart sample to the Central Food Laboratory (CFL) for re-analysis, and the CFL report subsequently 4 CRR 1922 OF 2022 corroborated an elevated melting point, maintaining the finding of technical adulteration. 7. The trial that ensued proceeded on a mechanical footing, wherein the prosecution examined witnesses including the Food Inspector (P.W.-2) and his assistant (P.W.-3), alongside producing the analytical reports and the sanction order. However, during rigorous cross-examination, P.W.-3 made startling and uncontradicted admissions that laid bare the complete compromise of the sampling process. He candidly admitted that the 15 kg tin from which the sample was drawn was not a pristine, unopened unit, but rather bore a "big hole" with a portion of its contents already sold to customers. Furthermore, it was revealed that instead of employing the mandatory sampling scoop prescribed under the Bureau of Indian Standards (IS: 548) protocol to draw a complete vertical and oblique core from the solid fat, the Food Inspector had extracted the 750 grams of Vanaspati using an ordinary stainless-steel spoon and a serving bowl supplied and verified by the hotel vendor, manually mixing them in that vendor-supplied bowl. 8. Despite these glaring infractions in collecting samples, and notwithstanding the undisputed record that a statutory Nominated Person was actively on record since June 2003, the Learned Senior Municipal Magistrate, by a judgment and order dated January 17, 2014, brushed aside these statutory exemptions and evidentiary flaws and relying purely on the analytical reports and a formal admission of directorship made by the petitioner during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court recorded 5 CRR 1922 OF 2022 an order of conviction against the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sections 7 and 17 of the PFA Act, sentencing him and core co-accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (and in default of payment thereof, an additional simple imprisonment for one month). 9. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the petitioner along with co- accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014 before the City Sessions Court at Calcutta. During the pendency of this appeal, a monumental scientific and legislative development altered the legal landscape. On June 27, 2013, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, acting through the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), issued an official notification completely deleting and expunging the upper melting point limit for Vanaspati. This regulatory action was anchored upon comprehensive joint scientific studies conducted by the FSSAI alongside the National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), Hyderabad, which conclusively established that higher melting points in Vanaspati entail zero deleterious or adverse effects on human health or digestion. 10. However, when the appellate court finally disposed of the appeal on May 31, 2022, it committed a profound judicial omission by maintaining total silence on this supervening 2013 FSSAI de-regulation. Furthermore, the appellate court cursorily glossed over the fatal sampling flaws brought out during the trial and ignored the statutory protections of Section 17 of the PFA Act, mechanically affirming the 6 CRR 1922 OF 2022 conviction and sentence of the petitioner while selectively granting relief to a co-accused, Brajesh Kumar Singh. 11. Left with no other efficacious remedy against concurrent findings tainted by patent illegalities, complete non-application of mind to vital statutory immunities, disregard for binding regulatory de-regulations, and acceptance of vitiated sampling evidence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant criminal revisional application (C.R.R. No. 1922 of 2022) under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., forming the foundational basis upon which this Court exercises its revisional jurisdiction today. 12. Assailing the concurrent judgments and orders Mr. Anirban Mitra, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner, Sri Ashok Agarwal, is a classic illustration of a mechanical prosecution run amok, completely divorced from statutory safeguards, scientific realities, and common sense. The petitioner, a professional Chartered Accountant whose sole and exclusive domain was the management of financial accounts, books, and taxation matters, has been unjustly dragged through nearly two decades of criminal trial, appeal, and revision for a technical food standard violation that never warranted criminal penalization in the first place. He further submitted that when a prosecution fails on foundational sampling integrity, statutory exemptions, and supervening legal de-regulations maintaining a conviction becomes an absolute abuse of the judicial process. 7 CRR 1922 OF 2022 13. Elaborating on the first defence of foundational integrity of the sample collected on September 28, 2007, the learned advocate vehemently pointed out through the uncontradicted admissions of P.W.-3 (the Food Inspector's assistant) that the 15 kg tin of Prasad Premium Vanaspati was not a pristine, sealed commercial container, but rather an open receptacle bearing a "big hole" from which portions of the cooking fat had already been sold to consumers. Furthermore, pointing to the gross violation of mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (IS: 548) protocols, counsel emphasizes that instead of using the prescribed vertical sampling scoop, the inspector extracted the solid fat using an ordinary kitchen spoon and a bowl borrowed from the hotel. Learned Counsel submits that a sample drawn from a compromised, open container using household utensils is inherently non-representative and legally valueless, rendering the Public Analyst and Central Food Laboratory reports completely unsustainable. 14. Advancing to the second defence of statutory protection afforded to the petitioner under Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act, 1954, the learned counsel underscored that the manufacturing company, M/s. Swastik Refinery Private Limited, had lawfully complied with the statutory mandate by placing a designated "Nominated Person" specifically their Production Manager, Sri Ashok Roy, on active record with the Local Health Authority as early as June 30, 2003. Learned Counsel submits that under the scheme of Section 17, when a Nominated Person is actively in charge of manufacturing and quality control, a non-executive, professional financial director cannot be roped 8 CRR 1922 OF 2022 into criminal liability unless the prosecution discharges the heavy burden of proving active connivance, consent, or day-to-day operational oversight. Both the trial court and the First appellate court committed a profound jurisdictional error by brushing aside this statutory safety valve and holding the financial director liable merely on the basis of a formal admission of directorship under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 15. Turning to the most decisive supervening development, the learned advocate highlights the profound impact of the FSSAI notification dated June 27, 2013. Learned Counsel submits that the sole basis of the prosecution was a marginal melting point variation42.4°Cagainst the then-prescribed upper limit of 41°C. However, following exhaustive scientific studies conducted by the National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), Hyderabad, which conclusively established that higher melting points in Vanaspati cause zero harm or adverse effects to human digestion or health, the competent sovereign regulatory body (FSSAI) officially deleted and expunged the upper melting point limit from the statute books altogether. Learned Counsel passionately argues that penal liability cannot outlive the scientific and legal basis of an offence. To sustain a conviction and a prison sentence in 2022 for a standard that the state itself officially de-regulated in 2013 is a direct violation of basic justice and fairness. 16. Finally, drawing the threads together, the learned advocate pointed out the glaring arbitrariness in the Sessions Court’s judgment dated May 31, 2022. While the Sessions Court correctly recognized the infirmities in respect of co-appellant Brajesh Kumar Singh and granted him an 9 CRR 1922 OF 2022 honourable acquittal, it committed a grave perversity by mechanically lumping the petitioner together with the corporate entity and upholding his conviction while maintaining total silence on the 2013 FSSAI scientific notification. 17. Mr. Mitra, concluded by urging this Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., to rectify these patent illegalities and perversities, set aside the concurrent judgments, and fully exonerate the petitioner from all charges, bringing a just and long-overdue end to his undesirable ordeal. 18. Supporting the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, Mr. Kushal Kumar Mukherjee, learned advocate for the opposite parties submitted that the criminal proceeding was validly initiated in 2008 following a proper inspection conducted on September 28, 2007, at M/s. Gujrati Hindu Hotel by the Food Inspector, acting on behalf of the Local Health Authority. He emphasized that all foundational procedural requirements under the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act, 1954, including the formal drawing of the sample, its division into three counterparts, proper sealing, and the procurement of a valid written sanction under Section 20 from the Chief Municipal Health Officer (CMHO) were strictly and meticulously complied with, leaving no room for procedural grievance. 19. Addressing the core evidentiary basis of the prosecution, the learned counsel highlighted the unassailable scientific integrity of the analytical reports. He pointed out that the sample of Prasad Premium Vanaspati was examined by the Public Analyst, who certified that the melting 10 CRR 1922 OF 2022 point was 42.4°C, thereby exceeding the statutory maximum limit of 41°C prevailing at the time. Crucially, when the counterpart sample was re-analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory (CFL) pursuant to statutory provisions, the CFL report independently corroborated and reinforced the Public Analyst's finding. Learned Counsel submits that under Section 13(3) of the PFA Act, the report of the Central Food Laboratory supersedes all other analytical evidence and constitutes conclusive and final proof of the standard deviation, leaving no scope for the defence to challenge the physical parameters of the food item. 20. Replying to the petitioner's objections regarding sampling methodology, the learned counsel urges this Court not to be swayed by minor or hyper-technical discrepancies. It is submitted that the Food Inspector followed standard procedures in mixing and dividing the sample, and that the minor deviations elicited during cross-examination regarding the container do not displace the solemn statutory presumption attached to official public documents like the CFL report. The prosecution maintains that the sample analyzed was a true representative of the product offered for public consumption, and that any deviation from prescribed physical standards no matter how marginal, constitutes a strict liability offence under the PFA framework, designed primarily to protect public health and consumer safety. 21. Confronting the argument concerning vicarious liability and the appointment of a Nominated Person under Section 17 of the PFA Act, the learned counsel contends that the corporate veil cannot be used as a shield to insulate persons in active control and directorship from the 11 CRR 1922 OF 2022 consequences of food adulteration. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner, as an admitted Director of the manufacturing company (M/s. Swastik Refinery Private Limited), shared collective corporate responsibility for the quality of goods placed into the streams of commerce. The trial court and the appellate court rightly took note of the petitioner's own admissions during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., establishing his corporate status and directorship, which justified fastening criminal accountability upon him alongside the company. 22. Finally, addressing the contention regarding the FSSAI notification dated June 27, 2013, the learned counsel submitted that subsequent regulatory changes or the prospective removal of a standard cannot retroactively invalidate a completed offense and a valid conviction that took place under the law as it stood at the time of the commission of the crime. Counsel argues that on the date of inspection in 2007, the upper melting point limit of 41°C was absolute and legally binding, and the deliberate breach of that statutory standard completed the elements of the offense under Section 2(ia)(m) read with Section 16 of the PFA Act. 23. Concluding the submissions, Mr. Mukherjee, urged that the concurrent judgments of the courts below suffer from no perversity or patent illegality, and prays for the immediate dismissal of the revisional application. 24. Having carefully scrutinized the entire chronology of foundational facts, the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, 12 CRR 1922 OF 2022 and the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, this Court finds that the proper and complete adjudication of the instant criminal revisional application hinges upon the determination of the following core questions: i. Whether the sampling methodology adopted by the raiding officers, specifically drawing food samples from an open, compromised container bearing a "big hole" using vendor- supplied household utensils rather than the mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (IS: 548) protocol, vitiates the evidentiary value of the Public Analyst and Central Food Laboratory reports, rendering the prosecution's foundational case legally unsustainable? ii. Whether criminal and vicarious liability could legally be fastened upon the petitioner, a professional Chartered Accountant exclusively managing financial, accounting, and taxation portfolios, in the face of the corporate body having lawfully placed a designated "Nominated Person" (Production Manager) on active record under Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act, 1954, since June 30, 2003? iii. What is the supervening legal and scientific effect of the FSSAI notification dated June 27, 2013 issued pursuant to National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) findings establishing that higher melting points in Vanaspati cause zero harm to human health upon an ongoing 13 CRR 1922 OF 2022 criminal conviction and sentence anchored solely on a marginal melting point variation 42.4°Cversus 41°C? iv. Whether the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below suffer from patent illegality, perversity, complete non-application of mind, and selective appreciation of evidence, thereby warranting the intercession of this Revisional Court to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice? 25. The first and foremost question that demands deep attention is the integrity of the sample itself. In any food adulteration case, the sample collected by the food inspector is the very foundation upon which the entire criminal structure rests. If the foundation is cracked, weak, or illegally laid, the building of prosecution cannot stand. This court requires to look closely at the sampling methodology adopted by the Food Inspector on September 28, 2007 at the hotel, where the food inspector went in to check the quality of the cooking fat, Prasad Premium Vanaspati, and decided to draw a sample from a 15 kg tin. The question is that how was that sample drawn, and what was the true condition of that container? 26. The answers to these vital questions came out clearly during the trial through the mouth of the prosecution's own witnesses. While the Food Inspector tried to present a picture of regular compliance, his assistant, examined as P.W.-3, made a candid and striking admission during his cross-examination. He admitted plainly that the 15 kg tin from which the sample was extracted was not a fresh, sealed, or unopened 14 CRR 1922 OF 2022 container. In fact, it bore a "big hole," and a portion of the vanaspati inside had already been sold to customers. Common sense tells us that once a food container is open, exposed to the environment, and partially emptied, its contents are no longer in their original, uniform state. Dust, air, moisture, and handling can easily alter the condition of the remaining food item. To take a sample from such a compromised, half- sold container and treat it as representative of a manufactured batch is fundamentally unfair. 27. What makes matters worse is the manner in which the sample was actually extracted. The law and official guidelines, specifically the Bureau of Indian Standards under protocol IS:548 lay down strict, scientific instructions for collecting samples of solid fats like vanaspati. A proper sample must be drawn using a specialized sampling scoop that cuts through the entire mass vertically to gather a true, representative core. Instead of following this mandatory scientific procedure, what did the raiding team do? They simply took an ordinary stainless-steel spoon and a serving bowl that was supplied and verified by the hotel vendor himself. Using that household spoon, they scooped out 750 grams of the fat and manually mixed it right there in the vendor's bowl before pouring it into sample bottles. 28. This Court is constrained to ask that how can a criminal conviction carrying a prison sentence be built on a sample scooped out of an open, damaged tin with a hotel's kitchen spoon? The mandatory rules of sampling are not empty formalities; they are designed precisely to protect citizens from contaminated, unscientific, or manipulated 15 CRR 1922 OF 2022 evidence. When an officer ignores the Bureau of Indian Standards protocols, uses vendor-supplied household utensils, and draws food from a container that already has a big hole in it, the entire chain of evidence is broken. The sample ceases to be an authentic and reliable representative of the product. 29. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed a grave and serious error by brushing aside these vital admissions as minor procedural irregularities. They treated the process of sampling as a mere paperwork exercise. But in criminal jurisprudence, when a person’s liberty is on the line, the sanctity of the evidence must be proved beyond a shadow of doubt. A sample drawn in total violation of mandatory safety protocols cannot form the basis of a valid chemical test report. 30. Therefore, upon examining the relevant facts, the admissions of the prosecution witnesses, and the mandatory requirements of law regarding proper sampling, this Court has no hesitation in answering Question No. I in the affirmative. It is conclusively held that the sampling methodology adopted by the raiding officers was fundamentally vitiated and illegal. Because the sample itself was compromised from an open tin using kitchen spoons, the subsequent Public Analyst and Central Food Laboratory reports lose their legal value, and the foundational case of the prosecution collapses entirely. 31. To answer this second question, this court must examine how the law treats criminal responsibility when a business organization runs into regulatory trouble. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 16 CRR 1922 OF 2022 contains a very clear and sensible provision under Section 17 to deal with corporate crimes. It recognizes that a company is an artificial body and cannot run itself. Therefore, if a food law violation occurs, the person primarily responsible should be the one who is actually in charge of manufacturing, processing, and quality control. To make this practical, Section 17(2) allows a company to formally appoint and register a "Nominated Person" with the local health authorities, someone like a Production Manager or Quality Control Head who takes explicit legal responsibility for the quality of the food products. 32. In this case, the manufacturing company, M/s. Swastik Refinery Private Limited, did exactly what the law asked them to do. As early as June 30, 2003, years before this inspection ever took place, the company lawfully placed on active record a designated Nominated Person, their Production Manager Sri Ashok Roy, with the Local Health Authority. By this legal step, the statutory responsibility for any product quality issue stood formally channelled towards that designated manager. 33. Now let me look at the present petitioner, Sri Ashok Agarwal. What was his actual role in the company? He was not a factory worker, a plant operator, a chemist, or a production head. He was a professional Chartered Accountant whose exclusive domain was the management of the company's financial accounts, balance sheets, and tax matters. He had zero connection to the manufacturing floor or quality checking. Yet, when the prosecution was launched, the authorities mechanically dragged in twelve different people, including multiple directors, casting a wide and careless net. 17 CRR 1922 OF 2022 34. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court fell into a profound legal trap. They completely ignored the statutory protection of the Nominated Person who had been active on record since 2003. Instead, they fastened criminal liability upon the petitioner simply because, during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he honestly admitted that he was a Director of the company. The Trial and the First Appellate courts seemed to operate on a mistaken assumption that the moment someone is a director of a company, they must automatically go to jail for any product defect, regardless of what they actually do. 35. That is not what the law says. Under Section 17 of the PFA Act, other directors or officers cannot be prosecuted blindly when a statutory Nominated Person is active, unless the prosecution brings forward clear, solid proof that the offense was committed with the active consent, connivance, or negligence of that specific director. The prosecution in this case did not produce a single shred of evidence showing that Mr. Agarwal had anything to do with the manufacturing of the vanaspati or that he connived in any quality deviation. To punish a financial accountant for a factory standard issue simply because of his corporate title is an absolute perversion of justice. 36. Therefore, upon examining the statutory scheme of Section 17, the undisputed appointment of the Nominated Person in 2003 as on record, and the complete lack of any evidence linking the individual culpability of the petitioner to manufacturing operations, this Court has no hesitation in answering Question No. II in the negative. It is 18 CRR 1922 OF 2022 conclusively held that the prosecution could not legally sustain criminal or vicarious liability against the petitioner, and the Magistrate as well as Sessions Court committed a grave error of law by ignoring statutory immunities and convicting a financial director without proof of active culpability. 37. This court now arrives at the third and perhaps most striking question for consideration, that is the monumental legal and scientific change that occurred while this litigation was pending before the Sessions Court. The entire foundation of the criminal prosecution against the petitioner was built upon a minuscule technical variation in the melting point of the sampled Prasad Premium Vanaspati. Back in September 2007, the Public Analyst and the Central Food Laboratory reported that the melting point of the sample was 42.4°C, which marginally exceeded the then-prescribed upper statutory limit of 41°C by a mere1.4°C. This tiny fractional difference was treated by the prosecuting authorities as a grave crime, resulting in a criminal trial and a conviction carrying a prison sentence. 38. Criminal law and food standards do not exist in a scientific vacuum; they must evolve with medical truth and empirical research. During the pendency of the appeal before the Sessions Court, a profound scientific and legislative development took place. On June 27, 2013, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, acting through the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), issued an official notification completely deleting and expunging the upper melting point limit for Vanaspati from the statute books. This regulatory action was not 19 CRR 1922 OF 2022 arbitrary or whimsical; it was anchored upon comprehensive, joint scientific studies conducted by the FSSAI alongside the premier National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), Hyderabad. Those exhaustive scientific studies conclusively established that higher melting points in Vanaspati entail zero deleterious, harmful, or adverse effects on human health, digestion, or metabolism. 39. When a sovereign regulatory body, backed by premier scientific institutions, formally deletes a standard because science has proven that the standard was based on an outdated premise and causes no harm whatsoever to the public, what happens to ongoing criminal prosecutions or convictions anchored solely on that deleted standard? Common sense, natural justice, and established legal principles dictate that penal liability cannot outlive the scientific justification of an offense. A standard that is officially recognized today as entirely harmless cannot logically serve as the bedrock for keeping a citizen behind bars for an act committed years ago under an obsolete rule. 40. Despite this revolutionary change in the law and science, the Sessions court committed a profound judicial omission when it finally decided the appeal on May 31, 2022 nearly nine years after the 2013 notification had been published. The appellate judge maintained total & absolute silence on the FSSAI notification. The court failed to appreciate that the very rule the petitioner was accused of breaking had been erased from the law books because it was scientifically baseless. To uphold a criminal conviction and a sentence in 2022 for a melting point variation that the government itself had de-regulated years prior as 20 CRR 1922 OF 2022 completely harmless is a glaring perversity and a manifest failure of judicial oversight. 41. Therefore, upon examining the 2013 FSSAI notification, the underlying National Institute of Nutrition scientific findings, and the impact of supervening regulatory de-regulations, this Court answers Point No. III by holding that the supervening deletion of the melting point limit completely strips the technical allegation of any criminality. It is utterly unjust and legally impermissible to sustain a conviction based on a standard that has been scientifically discredited and officially expunged by the state itself. 42. Adverting to the last question whether the concurrent judgments passed by both the courts suffer from such patent illegality, perversity, and non-application of mind that this Revisional Court must step in to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice. When this court looks at the cumulative picture of this litigation spanning nearly two decades, the pattern of judicial oversight becomes starkly apparent. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court adopted a mechanical, rubber-stamp approach to strict liability, entirely ignoring the vital safeguards embedded in the law. 43. They committed manifest perversity on multiple fronts. First, they turned a blind eye to the fatal flaws in the sampling process, ignoring the uncontradicted admission of the prosecution witness that the food was drawn from an open tin with a "big hole" using hotel kitchen utensils. Second, they brushed aside the statutory protection of Section 17 by punishing a professional financial accountant while an officially 21 CRR 1922 OF 2022 registered Nominated Person was active on record. Third, the Sessions court committed a profound judicial failure by maintaining total silence on the applicability of the 2013 FSSAI scientific notification, which officially de-regulated the very melting point limit upon which the entire prosecution was built. Compounding this arbitrariness, the appellate court selectively showed mercy and acquitted a co-appellant while mechanically upholding the conviction of the present petitioner. To sustain a criminal conviction under such a flawed and contradictory approach is an affront to the administration of justice. 44. Bringing together the discussions on all four questions, the legal findings of this Court stand clear and resolute: First, the sampling methodology was fundamentally illegal and vitiated, destroying the evidentiary value of the chemical reports. Second, the petitioner, being a non-executive financial director, enjoyed complete statutory immunity under Section 17 in the presence of an active Nominated Person. Third, the supervening 2013 FSSAI scientific de-regulation entirely stripped the marginal melting point variation of any criminality or harm. Fourth, the concurrent judgments suffer from patent perversity and non-application of mind, warranting immediate revisional intervention. 22 CRR 1922 OF 2022 45. Considering the discussion made above, this Court finds merit in the revisional application. C.R.R. No. 1922 of 2022 is hereby allowed. 46. Consequently, allowing the conviction to stand any longer would be a severe travesty of justice. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated January 17, 2014, passed by the Learned Senior Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, along with the appellate judgment dated May 31, 2022, passed by the City Sessions Court at Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014, are both set aside and quashed in respect of the Petitioner, Sri Ashok Agarwal. 47. The Petitioner is acquitted of all charges. 48. He is discharged from his bail bonds, and any fine amount deposited by him during the course of these proceedings shall be refunded to him forthwith. 49. Connected application being CRAN 1 of 2022 is also disposed of accordingly. 50. There shall be no order as to costs. 51. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court Records be transmitted down immediately for information and necessary compliance. 52. Case diary, be returned to the Learned Counsel for the State. 53. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)