Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
STATE - Appellant
Versus
AMAR SINGH - Respondent
CRL.A. 1416/2013
Decided on : 18.8.2015
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Misbranding - Section 2(ix)(e)(g)&(k), Rule 32(b)&(e), Rule 37, Rule 42 (zzz)(16) - Summary: The court upheld the conviction of the respondent for misbranding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and violation of specific rules. The court considered the absence of health hazard and the plea of guilt by the respondent. The legal provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 were also discussed, emphasizing the definition of 'misbranded food' and the overriding effect of the Act over other food-related laws. The court referred to relevant case laws and highlighted the discretion of the trial judge in imposing the sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was convicted for misbranding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling 'Choco Pie' with mislabeling. The court noted the absence of adulteration and the plea of guilt by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sentence imposed on the respondent was reasoned, fair, and not arbitrary, considering the absence of health hazard and the plea of guilt. The court also discussed the relevant legal provisions and case laws.
Issues: The issues involved the adequacy of the sentence for misbranding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the plea of guilt by the respondent, and the applicability of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the absence of health hazard, the plea of guilt by the respondent, and the legal provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The court also considered relevant case laws and emphasized the discretion of the trial judge in imposing the sentence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the court found the sentence imposed on the respondent to be reasoned, fair, and not arbitrary.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the State questioning the judgment dated 16.01.2013 passed by the learned ACMM who while upholding the conviction of the respondent under Section 2(ix)(e)(g)&(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the PFA Act) and for violation of Rule 32(b)&(e), Rule 37 and Rule 42 (zzz)(16) of the PFA Rules 1955 punishable under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act sentenced the respondent to undergo SI for 1 day i.e. till the rising of the Court. He had also imposed a fine of Rs.35,000/- upon the respondent.
2. The State is aggrieved by this order of sentence. Submission is that the sentence awarded to the respondent is inadequate. There is a minimum sentence which is prescribed for this offence which is for a period of 3 months and no special reason having been accorded for imposing a sentence lesser than the minimum (minimum having been engrafted by the Legislature), the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
3. The respondent has put an appearance. He has made submissions orally. His submission is that he does not wish to file any reply.
4. Arguments have been heard.
5. The first submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C. under which this appeal has been filed, the State should have approached the Sessions Court and not the High Court as has been done so in the instant case as against an order passed by the Magistrate, the appeal lies to the Sessions Judge and not to the High Court.
6. A query has been put to the learned counsel for the State by this Court. Her submission is that the petition has been drafted in the Department and has been straight away marked to her. She does not have any specific answer to this query.
7. Be that as it may, this Court notes that the power of the Sessions Court and the High Court are concurrent. Section 377 (1)(a)&(b) states that the State Govt. in a case of conviction on a trial held by any court can direct the Public Prosecutor to present the appeal against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy to the Court of Sessions (a) if the sentence is passed by any other Court. Sub clause (1) (b) encompasses the powers of the High Court to answer an appeal if the order has been passed by any Court.
8. In view of the aforenoted position, this Court is inclined to entertain this appeal.
9. Even otherwise, no useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter back to the Sessions Court as the pleadings are complete and the arguments have already been addressed.
10. On merits, it has been submitted that this is a case of mis-branding. It is not as if any health hazard has been suffered by any party. The respondent had pleaded guilty hoping for a lesser sentence and if the Court is inclined to interfere in the sentence it would cause grave prejudice to the respondent. To support this submission, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in 2013(1) ACR 353 Jeetu @ Jitendera and Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh. Submission being that in a case of plea bargaining where the accused has been promised that he would be let off on fine and would not be imprisoned, it was only then that he had agreed to plead guilty and if the sentence is now modified, it would be clearly violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has also been placed upon 1996 (20) ACR 717(SC) Krishan Gopal Sharma and Anr. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi to support a submission that in appropriate cases the Court has power to reduce the sentence and in this case also where the offence was punishable under Section 16(1) of the PFA Act, for adequate and special reason the Court had granted relief. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of this Court in 2012 (2) JCC 871 Food Inspector Vs Vinod Kumar to support the same submission.
11. Needless to state that these arguments have been refuted.
12. This appeal is on a limited
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
