SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(MP) 399

J.P. Gupta, JJ.
Harish Dayani v. State of M. P.
Criminal Revision No. 6276 of 2019 (Jabalpur): against the judgment and sentence dated 30.12.2019 passed by the XVIII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Criminal Appeal No.8/15;
Decided on 6.1.2020

Advocates:
Vivek K. Tankha with Yagyavalk Shukla, Jasneet Singh Hora and Ms. Trishala Trivedi for applicant; Abhinav Dubey, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

Headnote:

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 -- Ss. 7 (i) r/w S. 16 (1) (a) (i), 7 (ii) r/w S. 16 (1) (a) (i) and 7 (v) r/w S. 16 (1) (a) (ii) -- Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 -- Ss. 51, 52, 54, 58and49 -- Act of 1954 repealed by Act of 2006 w.e.f. 5.8.2011 -- sentence substituted by penalty -- applicant entitled to benefit of changes in law -- penalty may be imposed u/ss. 51, 52, 54 and 58 of Act of 2006 -- considering unfair advantage of amount and capacity of applicant as representative of Company, sentence substituted by heavy penalties. (2016) 1 FAC 561 (SC), (2016) 1 FAC 203 (SC), (1982) 2 FAC 362 (SC) and Criminal Appeal No. 1831 of 2019 decided on 1.10.2019 (SC) followed. Cr. R. No. 3324 of 2019 decided on 19.7.2019 (MP), Cr. R. No. 662 of 2013 decided on 22.9.2017 (Guj.), Cr. R. No. 2975 of 2016 decided on 23.8.2018 (P & H), (2018) 4 JCC 2111 (Del.) and Cr. R. No. 1275 of 2014 decided on 15.3.2019 (P & H) relied on. [Para 7]

[kk| vifeJ.k fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1954 & /kkjk 7¼1½ lgifBr /kkjk 16¼1½¼d½¼1½] 7¼2½ lgifBr /kkjk 16¼1½¼d½¼1½ rFkk 7¼5½ lgifBr /kkjk 16¼1½¼d½¼2½ & [kk| lqj{kk vkSj ekud vf/kfu;e] 2006 & /kkjk 51] 52] 54] 58 rFkk 49 & lu~ 2006 ds vf/kfu;e }kjk lu~ 1954 dk vf/kfu;e 5-8-2011 ls fujflr & naMkns'k 'kkfLr ls çfrLFkkfir & vkosnd fof/k esa ifjorZuksa ds Qk;ns dk gdnkj & lu~ 2006 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 51] 52] 54 rFkk 58 ds v/khu 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir dh tk ldrh gS & jde ds v_tq Qk;ns vkSj daiuh ds çfrfuf/k ds :i esa vkosnd dh gSfl;r ij fopkj djrs gq,] naMkns'k Hkkjh 'kkfLr ls çfrLFkkfirA ¼2016½ 1 ,Q , lh 561 ¼,l lh½] ¼2016½ 1 ,Q , lh 203 ¼,l lh½] ¼1982½ 2 ,Q , lh 362 ¼,l lh½ rFkk nkafMd vihy Øekad 1831 lu~ 2019 fu.khZr fnukad 1-10-2019 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ vuqlfjrA nkafMd iqujh{k.k Øekad 3324 lu~ 2019 fu.khZr fnukad 19-7-2019 ¼eŒçŒ½] nkafMd iqujh{k.k Øekad 662 lu~ 2013 fu.khZr fnukad 22-9-2017 ¼xqtjkr½] nkafMd iqujh{k.k Øekad 2975 lu~ 2016 fu.khZr fnukad 23-8-2018 ¼iatkc rFkk gfj;k.kk½ ¼2018½ 4 ts lh lh 2111 ¼fnYyh½ rFkk nkafMd iqujh{k.k Øekad 1275 lu~ 2014 fu.khZr fnukad 15-3-2019 ¼iatkc rFkk gfj;k.kk½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 7½

ORDER

Record of both the Courts below is received. With the consent of the parties, this criminal revision is finally heard.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the applicant under section 397/401 of the CrPC being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.12.2019 passed by 18th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 8/15 affirming the judgment dated 10.12.2014 passed by the JMFC, Jabalpur in RCT No. 13550/2011, whereby the applicant has been convicted for commission of offence of food adulteration under section 7 (i) r/w S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the "PFA Act") and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, also convicted for commission of offence of misbranding of Lipton Tree Top Orange Cold Drinks under section 7 (ii) r/w 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the "PFA Act") and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further convicted for commission of offence of selling of aforesaid items without warranty under section 7 (v) r/w S.16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the "PFA Act") and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation clause as mentioned in the impugned judgment.

2. The facts, giving rise to this revision, are that the applicant is the nominee of the Lipton India Limited company under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and is responsible to implement the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "PFA Act") with regard to food products of the company. The food products of the company were stored in the depot of the company situated at Panagar, District Jabalpur which was being managed by M/s. Rathore Clearing & Forwarding Agency and Mohd. Saleem was the Depot Manager. On 21.9.1989, Food Inspector Shri H. D. Dubey inspected the depot where he found that Tree Top Orange Cold Drinks of Lipton Company Limited were stored for sale and distribution which were misbranded and took sample of the said Tree Top Orange Cold Drinks in accordance with law and sent the same for its public analysis which was found adulterated and on inquiry from the Depot Manager, it was also found that no warranty was issued with regard to the product as required under section 14 of the PFA Act and rule 12 (a) of the PFA Rules, 1955 and thereafter, after getting sanction to prosecute the applicant, the Lipton India Limited company and the Depot Manager Mohd. Saleem and other co-accused persons, a complaint was filed before the trial Court and during the trial, other co-accused persons were discharged as they were not liable under the criminal law for the act of the company. During the trial, the sample of the food was also sent to the Central Food Laboratory and the sample was found adulterated and misbranded having extraneous substance. Further, there is no report that food item was injurious to health or was unsafe and after trial, learned JMFC convicted and sentenced the applicant being the nominee of the company and also Depot Manager Mohd. Saleem. In the appeal, learned appellate Court acquitted the Depot Manager Mohd. Saleem and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant. Hence, this revision.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that though the applicant has some prima facie case even on merits, he does not want to press this revision and by giving up the plea on merits, his only submission is with regard to the sentence which has been imposed by the Courts below on the ground of changes in the law. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 has been repealed by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 w.e.f. 5.8.2011 and under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the aforesaid punishable acts are not punishable with imprisonment and only penalty can

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top