v. The State of West Bengal 1 sustained a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Corporation and held that the case was triable by the Court of Sessions.
First as to facts.
The gravamen of the charge was that the respondents had stored and or exposed for sale and or used Hyacinths ground white pepper companypound with fried rice powder for the purpose of manufacturing and preparing different articles of food which was adulterated and misbranded.
On such analysis, the sample was found to be adulterated as it companytained numberrice powder but wheat powder.
On September 24, 1975 the appellant lodged a companyplaint against the respondents for having companymitted an offence punishable under s.16 1 a read with s.7 of the Act in the Court of Senior Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 5th June, 1978 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No.
But a change was brought about when Parliament enacted the Central Amendment Act which came into force on April 1, 1976 by which the scheme of s.16 of the Act providing for various punishments was materially altered so also the procedure for the trial of such offences.
3 State of Bengal .
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
40 of 1979.
If the law companytinued to stand as it stood on the date of the offence which was so companymitted, there would have been numberdifficulty because the maximum penalty would be imprisonment for life and fine and as such the offences would be exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
Such offences according to the law then in force i.e. the Act as amended by the Prevention of Adulteration of Food, Drugs and Cosmetics West Bengal Amendment Act, 1973 for short the West Bengal Amendment Act were punishable with imprisonment for life and therefore triable by the Court of Sessions.
On August 16, 1975 the appellant, a Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta, visited the Chungwa Restaurant run by the respondents at Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta and purchased a quantity of Hyacinths ground white pepper companypound with fried rice powder and sent the same to a Public Analyst for analysis.
133 of 1978.
Mukherjee, Pradeep Ghosh and P.K. Mukherjee for the appellant.
S. Chatterjee for respondent No.
C. Talukdar and Amlan Ghosh for respondent Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. This appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated June 5, 1978 raises a question of some companyplexity.
1 and 2.
The question is as to the applicability of s. 16A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Act for short as inserted by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Amendment Act, 1976 for short the Central Amendment Act with respect to prosecutions launched under s.16 1 a read with s.7 of the Act in the State of West Bengal between the period from April 29, 1974 to April 1, 1976.
The effect of the Central Amendment Act was that the West Bengal Amendment Act stood impliedly repealed with effect from April 1, 1976 and the question is whether the previous operation of the repealed West Bengal Amendment Act in respect of any liability incurred thereunder is preserved by s.8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 which is pari materia with s.6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 both as to procedure for trial of such offences and the nature of punishment liable to be imposed.
