Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1393
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRANJAL DAS, J.
Raj Narayan Sah, S/o Lt. Sitaram Sah – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam – Respondent
Crl.Rev.P.388 of 2012
Decided on : 05.08.2025
For the Appellant : MR.S R BORUAH, MR.D GOGOI,MR.A M BORA
For the Respondent: PP, ASSAM
The court acknowledged that the Food Safety and Standards Act allows for beneficial interpretations in pending cases, modifying the sentence from imprisonment to a fine only.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 7 and 16 - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Section 51 - Conviction for food adulteration under PFA - Sentencing modified from six months imprisonment and Rs.1,000 fine to only Rs.1,000 fine due to beneficial interpretation of new law - No substantial change in culpability established under FSS Act, maintaining principle of leniency for ongoing proceedings. (Paras 4, 6, 8)
(B) Sentencing - Importance of interpreting new provisions beneficially in pending cases was acknowledged with reference to Supreme Court decisions - Modification of sentence reflects the judicial approach to enhance justice in the face of changing regulatory frameworks. (Paras 4, 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under PFA for selling adulterated food, receiving a six-month sentence and a fine. The current revision seeks reduction of penalty based on a new legal framework more favorable to the accused.
Findings of Court:
The court partly allowed the revision, altering the sentence to only a financial penalty while recognizing the provisions of the FSS Act as applicable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the new FSS Act provisions could be applied to alter the outcome of this pending case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the provisions of the FSS Act support a more lenient approach towards sentencing for ongoing matters, aligning with statutory objectives of the new law.
Result: The criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under food safety laws. (Para 2) |
| 2. application of new food safety act. (Para 4) |
| 3. understanding penalties under fss act. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. modification of sentence to fine. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
PRANJAL DAS, J.
Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. V.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner namely, Raj Narayan Sah, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2008, upholding the judgment and order dated 10.07.2008 passed by the learned SDJM, Kaliabor, Nagaon in CR Case No. 93/01. By the said judgment, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 7 /16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter PFA) and sentence imposed was six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month.
3. The trial court record is available here.
4. The learned Senior counsel submits that he has a limited prayer inasmuch as, he seeks benefit of Section 51 of the new law governing the field, namely Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (herein after FSS Act) and the substance of the said provision is stated to be pari materia to Section 7 of the PFA. In this regard, a judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has been placed which was rendered on 16.12.2024 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 412/2011. The learned Senior counsel has drawn my attention to para 10 onwards. This court after referring to two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, Trilok Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , reported in 2020 10 SCC 763 and T. Barai vs. Henry Ah Hoe , reported in (1983) 1 SCC 177, held that beneficial interpretation of the new Act can be applied to cases presently pending also. The said principle was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned Trilok Chand (supra) and T. Barai (supra). Accordingly, in the said decision, this Court directed the sentence of simple imprisonment for 6(six) months to be modified to fine already directed to paid.
5. Section 51 of FSS Act may be reproduced herein below-
Section 51 of the Act, 2006 prescribes that any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is substandard, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to five lakh rupees.
In the case in hand, the complaint and the conviction is also relatable to an allegation which says that the material/food seized from the possession of the accused petitioners were adulterated.
6. I find that an important change brought about by this provision of the new Act is that the offence under Section 51 is punishable with fine only, which however, can extend to as much as Rs.5,000/-.
7. The Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that this case can also be disposed of on similar line as the same is the accepted legal position in such cases.
8. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition stands partly allowed by interfering only with the sentence of imprisonment and it is as directed that sentence should be confined to the fine already directed to be paid i.e. Rs.1,000/- along with the default stipulation.
9. Send back the trial court record.
