JUDGMENT : Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:- 1. The petitioner was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, 1976 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-by a judgment and order of conviction dated 6th August, 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia, in Case No. 497C of 1994 corresponding to T.R. No. 363 of 1994. 2. The aforesaid order of conviction was affirmed on appeal by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Track Court-1, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2012. 3. The Sub-Divisional Food Inspector, Sadar, Sub-Division Nadia lodged a complaint dated 27.07.1994 which precisely stated the petitioner to own a grocery shop at Chatapara, Tehatta, dealing with storage and sale of food item namely (‘Atta’ which was kept in a sack). On an inspection the Food Inspector purchased a sample of wheat powder from a sack containing 20 kilogram ‘Atta’ on presumption of the same being adulterated. He complied the legal formalities in presence of a witness named Mohan Ghosh, in order to send the sample to Public Analyst, Nadia. 4. A part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Nadia for analysis and other two parts of the samples were sent to the Local (Health) Authority, Sadar, Sub-Division, Nadia, as per provision of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, 1976 (No. 34 of 1974) after observance of all legal formalities. The Public Analyst, Nadia on examination of the said sample expressed his opinion that the sample of wheat powder was adulterated as per his Report No. 1194(4) dated 06.07.1994. On the basis of the said report of the Public Analyst, Nadia, it appeared that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, 1976, read with Section 7(i) of the said Act. 5. On the basis of materials on record charges were framed under Section 16 (1A) (i), of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, 1976, to which accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as per law. 6. The complainant produced 3 witnesses and exhibited certain documents. 7. 5. On the basis of materials on record charges were framed under Section 16 (1A) (i), of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, 1976, to which accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as per law. 6. The complainant produced 3 witnesses and exhibited certain documents. 7. The Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the provisions enumerated in Section 13 and Section 11 (i) (b), Section 10 (7), Section 19 (2) and Section 13 (3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, 1976 had not been complied with by the complainant, i.e. the Food Inspector at the time of seizing the sample. The seized sample was never produced before the Court which was otherwise destroyed without following the rules and obtaining leave of the concerned Court. The ownership of the grocery shop was not proved and the seizure was not conducted in presence of any independent witness. The analysis report did not reveal the sample sent for examination was unsuitable for human consumption. The complainant has falsely implicated the petitioner and therefore the order of conviction dated 06.07.1994 is liable to be set aside. 8. The Learned Advocate for the State submits the report of the Public Analyst endorses the sample to be adulterated and accordingly the petitioner has been rightly convicted and the revisional application shall be dismissed. 9. The complainant PW-1 Debasish Roy being Sub-Divisional Food Inspector, Krishnanagar deposed his doubtfulness about the quality of the wheat powder and purchased 600 grams of the same against a receipt with the signature of Swapan Debnath, the owner of the grocery shop and Mohan Ghosh marked as ‘Exhibit-1’. On 27.05.1994 he was posted as Sub-Divisional Food Inspector at Nadia and he had inspected the grocery shop of the accused Swapan Debnath of Chaterpara along with G.D.A. Mohon Ghosh. Prepared receipts in form No. VI was served to the accused in presence of witness Mohon Ghosh. He preserved the said wheat powder in three empty lean dry plastic containers and pasted labels and each was wrapped with brown paper and thread. He obtained signature of the accused on it and left the shop. Prepared receipts in form No. VI was served to the accused in presence of witness Mohon Ghosh. He preserved the said wheat powder in three empty lean dry plastic containers and pasted labels and each was wrapped with brown paper and thread. He obtained signature of the accused on it and left the shop. Thereafter, he filled up four copies of form-VII and sent one copy of the said form and one piece of said samples (container) in two sets in sealed envelopes to the Public Analyst, Nadia and another sealed envelope containing the remaining sample and filled up form (VII) were sent to District Health Officer, Nadia. The form no. VII duly filled by him was marked as Exhibit-3. The specimen Impression of Seal was marked as Exhibit-4. The two receipts so issued by the office of public analyst were marked as Exhibit-5 and Exhibit-6. Report regarding collection of sample and his signature was marked as Exhibit-7. On endorsement of A.C.M.O.H. he lodged a complaint which was filled up and signed by himself. The endorsement was marked as Exhibit-8/1 and the complaint was marked as Exhibit-9. Thereafter the accused was sent a notice along with a report of public analyst under registered post with A/D. The said postal receipt and copy of notice were marked as Exhibit-10 and Exhibit-10/1. The sample kept in custody of A.C.M.O.H. was destroyed by the order of the then A.C.M.O.H. namely K. P. Das. The present A.C.M.O.H. filed a letter stating that the sample had been destroyed and the said letter was marked as Exhibit-11. His cross examination revealed that he did not give any notice or did not take any step against the persons who refused to sign in the shop of the accused. He did not seize any document regarding the ownership of the shop. He informed the court about the destruction of the sample on 04.05.2010 for first time. He could not bring the seized article before the court as it was destroyed. 10. PW-2, Mohon Chandra Ghosh, who was posted in the office of A.C.M.O.H., Krishnanagar, has stated in his evidence that on 27.05.1994 he went to Tehatta Charatala with Debasish Roy at the grocery shop of the accused Swapan Debnath. PW-1 purchased 600gm. wheat powder with a receipt of Rs. 2.82/-. 10. PW-2, Mohon Chandra Ghosh, who was posted in the office of A.C.M.O.H., Krishnanagar, has stated in his evidence that on 27.05.1994 he went to Tehatta Charatala with Debasish Roy at the grocery shop of the accused Swapan Debnath. PW-1 purchased 600gm. wheat powder with a receipt of Rs. 2.82/-. He put his signature on the receipt and on identification of his signature it was marked as Exhibit No. 1/1. The PW-1 took 600gm. wheat powder in three dry clean plastic containers which were labeled and sealed. He also put his signature on form no. VI and on identification his signature was marked as Exhibit-2/1. The PW-1 compiled all formalities as per law and he helped him. He took the sample to the Public Analyst and took a receipt in that respect. 11. PW-3 Krishnapada Das, retired A.C.M.O.H. stated that Exhibit-9 was prepared under his instruction and he put his signature on it and on identification his signature was marked as Exhibit-9/1. On identification of his signatures on Exhibit-3, Exhibit-7 and Exhibit-10, his signatures were marked as Exhibit No. 3/1, Exhibit-7/1 and Exhibit-10/1 respectively. PW-2 had no personal knowledge about the incident. He put his signatures on relevant papers only after going through the papers. 12. The disputed food article ‘Atta’ is a perishable commodity susceptible to decay. 13. The dictionary meaning of ‘Atta’ in English is “a whole wheat flour from the Indian sub-continent, having a high gluten content and used to make chapatti and other traditional flatbreads.” 14. Based on the study of the chemical composition of ‘wheat flour’ or ‘Atta’, it can be stated that wheat starch is one of its integral component. The Public Analyst report dated 06.07.94 marked ‘Exhibit – 8’ states as follows :– Moisture at (130ºC -133ºC for 2 hrs.)% = 11.8 Parasitic infestations = Not found Microscopical Examination = Wheat starch present Rodent hair & excrete = Not found On dry weight basis On dry weight basis Ash% Ash insoluble in dil.Hcl % Gluten% Alcoholic(90%) acidity(as H2SO4)%(on dry basis) 2.15 0.235 9.8 0.09 15. The report as aforesaid did not specifically define the standard prescribed for ‘Atta’ to determine the same to be adulterated. A study of the composition of wheat flour or ‘Atta’ demonstrates the following constituents viz. Proteins, starch, liquids, sugars, enzymes, Ash, crude fibre, moisture. Gluten is the protein present in the wheat flour. 16. The report as aforesaid did not specifically define the standard prescribed for ‘Atta’ to determine the same to be adulterated. A study of the composition of wheat flour or ‘Atta’ demonstrates the following constituents viz. Proteins, starch, liquids, sugars, enzymes, Ash, crude fibre, moisture. Gluten is the protein present in the wheat flour. 16. The report as stated above did not depict any foreign compound to be present in the sample of ‘Atta’ apart from the elements that comprise it. Parasitic infestations, Rodent hair and excreta were not found, to degrade its nutritive value and diminutive functionality. 17. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘adulterated’ is to render (something) poorer in quality by adding another substance.” 18. It is generally considered that “wheat flour is often adulterated with pebble straw, dust, weed seeds and damaged grains.” 19. The addition or the presence of ‘another substance’ in the sample of ‘Atta’ was not detected. Apart from the ingredients or the constituents which form the wheat flour or ‘Atta’, the Public Analyst did not detect any other substance to render it adulterated diminishing its quality for human consumption. The exact date of conducting the chemical analysis of the sample was not stated. The report was furnished on 06.07.94 over a month after the sample was seized which inferred its degradability being concealed in a packet with consequential decay. 20. No independent witness being any of the customers to have procured and consumed the ‘Atta’ from the shop of the petitioner was cited. Nobody complained in individual capacity through a distinct complaint to the police or filed a complaint to the concerned office of the Food Inspector. The complainant did not endeavor to trace the source of the ‘Atta’ since the petitioner was not the manufacturer of the ‘Atta’ which he purchased for retailing. 21. In order to prove the offences as alleged the commodity to be ‘adulterated’ or ‘contaminated’ must he proved at the first instance. Mere statement of any food article to be adulterated without stating the parameters to detect such adulteration or contamination rendering it unfit for human consumption moreover hazardous to health in its minuscule existence cannot be an accepted proposition. The public analyst report devoid of material and justifiable evaluation, non-explanatory in nature cannot be relied upon. The public analyst Mr. Kalyan Kumar Sen, who conducted the analysis was not cited as a witness. The public analyst report devoid of material and justifiable evaluation, non-explanatory in nature cannot be relied upon. The public analyst Mr. Kalyan Kumar Sen, who conducted the analysis was not cited as a witness. The evidence of PW-3 is based on hearsay and devoid of reliability. 22. The petitioner cannot be convicted on the basis of suspicion and absence of reliable, trustworthy, corroborative evidence as discussed above. 23. Accordingly, the revisional application is allowed. 24. The order dated. 06.08.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2012 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – I, Krishnagar, Nadia in upholding the order of conviction of the petitioner passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in case No. 497C of 1994 corresponding to T.B. No. 363 of 1994 are set aside. 25. Connected application if any is also disposed of accordingly. 26. There is no order as to cost. 27. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to the Learned Trial Court as well as the police station concerned for necessary information and compliance. 28. All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this court.