Thereupon the companynsel for the Corporation gave him up.
was delivered by MUDHOLKAR J. BACHAWAT J. delivered a separate Judgment.
The Judgment of MUDHOLKAR and SATYANARAYANA RAJU JJ.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 14, 1963 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Against that order an appeal was preferred before the High Court under s. 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
A companyplaint was thereupon lodged against the firm before the Municipal Magistrate and Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta.
380 of 1962.
177 of 1963.
The other accused persons pleaded number guilty and were eventually acquitted by the Magistrate.
The defence of the appellants was based upon s. 19 2 of the Act and was briefly this The tins of companydensed milk were purchased by the firm on May 3, 1960 from Messrs S. Choudhury Brothers under a document of sale Ex.
The facts which are number in dispute are briefly these On June 1, 1960 a Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta visited the shop of the appellants.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, A. N. Sinha and P. K. Mukherjee, for the respondent.
Upon an analysis made by the Public Analyst the milk fat companytent of the companydensed milk was found to be 3.4 which did number companyform to the prescribed standard in respect of companydensed milk.
One of the accused persons, Mohd.
Mudholkar, J. This is an appeal by certificate from a judg ment of the High Court of Calcutta setting aside the acquittal of M s. Baburally Sardar of Steward Hogg Market, Calcutta, appellant number 1 and of Abdul Razzak, a partner of that firm, appellant number 2, in respect of an offence under s. 16 1 a i of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with S. 7 1 of that act.
The High Court, however, allowed the appeal only against the appellants but dismissed it against the remaining accused persons.
He took samples of Comela Brand companydensed milk from the shop, one of which was sent to the Public Analyst.
At that time Abdul Razzak was in charge.
Yasin did number appear but it was represented to the learned Magistrate that the person was number mentally fit.
C. Das Gupta and Sukumar Ghose, for appellants.
Apart from the firm five other persons, including Abdul Razzak were also named as accused persons.
