The court upheld the sentence awarded under FSSA, highlighting the absence of a minimum sentence prescribed for the offense of adding color to the food article.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

Crl.M.A. No.12229/2017

1. For the reasons stated in the application, 90 days’ delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. Application is disposed of.

Crl.A. No.753/2017

1. State is in appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 24th November, 2016 and the sentence awarded to the respondent by learned ASJ-01 while disposing of Criminal Appeal No.8550/2016. Vide impugned judgment, the sentence awarded to the respondent by the learned ACMM in CC No.193/2012 has been reduced by the learned ASJ-01 as under:     

2. The respondent/accused has not challenged his conviction or the order on sentence. The State is aggrieved to the limited extent that the respondent/accused could not have been awarded the sentence ‘till rising of the Court’ as the minimum sentence prescribed in the law is three months. The grounds of challenge in appeal are as under:

“(A) Because the impugned order is manifestly wrong, illegal and against the facts on record.

(B) Because the order of Ld. Appellate Court is against the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1570/2010 titled as Mithlesh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi wherein it was held that “no further benevolence can be shown to the appellant, more so, when it is a case of food adulteration. There is no special circumstance which may warrant reducing the sentence below the minimum”

(C) Because the Ld. Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the offence committed by the accused was serious in nature and hence the Ld. Trial Court had awarded him the sentence of 18 months.

(D) Because the Ld. Appellate Court erred in reducing the sentence from 18 months, awarded by the Ld. Trial Court, to till the rising of the Court, as the minimum sentence prescribed in the law is three months.

(E) Because the Ld. Appellate Court did not appreciate the legal position correctly.

(F) That the petitioner craves leave to this Hon'ble Court to add, amend or drop any of the grounds.

(G) That no such similar or other petition has been filed either before this Hon'ble Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.”

3. Learned APP for the State submitted that in decision reported as Mithlesh vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2014) 123 SCC 423, the Apex Court refused to further reduce the sentence observing that it was a case of food adulteration and there was no special circumstance warranting reducing the sentence below the minimum, especially when the High Court had already shown benevolence by reducing the sentence from one year to three months.

4. Mr. K.K. Manan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the case of the respondent is squarely covered by this recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case Nemi Chand vs. State of Rajasthan II (2016) CCR 15 (SC). learned ASJ has rightly held it to be an offence punishable under Section 59(i) of FSSA Act for the purpose of awarding the punishment and no minimum sentence is prescribed for the above said offence.

5. Learned APP for the State fairly concedes that in the grounds of appeal there is no challenge to the finding of the learned ASJ that Dal Arhar coloured with synthetic colour “Tartrazine” is termed as “unsafe food” in terms of Sec.3(zz) (vii) of FSSA Act punishable under Section 59(i) of FSSA and no minimum sentence is prescribed there under.

6. Learned ASJ considered that since on the date of judgment and order on sentence in this case, the PFA Act, 1954 stood repealed, the learned Trial