Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G.S.Ahluwalia
Komal Singh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
This Criminal Revision, under Section 397 /401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2024 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.210/2022 thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.10.2022 passed by JMFC, Morena in RCT No.2800340/2011 by which applicant has been convicted under Section 7 /16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and has been sentenced to undergo RI of six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default RI of one month.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that on 29.08.2010 at about 01:30 pm, sample of milk was collected from Tanker No.MP06-GA-0526. The report of Public Analyst was obtained, according to which the sample was found to be adulterated. Applicant filed an application for retesting by Central Laboratory. The report of Central Laboratory Ex.D-1 was also received. It is found that sample of milk does not conform to the standards laid down under Item No.A.11.01.11 of Appendix B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, in that solid not fat is below the minimum prescribed limits and Te
The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 overrides the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act regarding penalties for food adulteration, allowing for fines instead of imprisonment in instances of misbran....
The court upheld the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but reduced the sentence to the period already served due to the lengthy trial and circumstances surrounding the case.
The court upheld the conviction for food adulteration but reduced the sentence to the time already served due to the prolonged trial.
Misbranding – Punishment under PFA and penalty under FSSA cannot be imposed on violator for same misbranding because it will amount to double jeopardy which is prohibited under Article 20(2) of Const....
The court ruled that beneficial amendments in law can be applied retrospectively to pending cases, modifying sentences accordingly.
The court modified the sentence for food adulteration to the time already served, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the petitioner's lack of prior offenses.
(1) Quantum of punishment – There is no prohibition, for this Court to impose a lesser punishment which is now applicable for same crime.(2) There is no provision for imprisonment – When an amendment....
Statutory interpretation of offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act regarding definitions and sentencing provisions.
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
