IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO.

2047 of 2025 ==========================================================

SHAILESHBHAI JENTIBHAI MEHTA Versus FOOD SAFETY DEPARTMENT OF RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH CONCERNED OFFICER & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 SHRUTI PATHAK APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 07/11/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval for the Applicant. The Applicant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2022, whereby the appeal was dismissed confirming the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal), Rajkot, in Criminal Case No. 100013 of 2015, whereby the Applicant was convicted under Sections 59(i) and 57(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, read with Section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has approached this Court.

2. The facts in a nutshell are as under:

2.1 The complainant, Mr. R. R. Parmar, Food Safety Officer (hereinafter referred to as “FSO”), Rajkot Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “RMC”), Rajkot, is notified as FSO for the city area of Rajkot by the Government of Gujarat vide notification under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, dated 04.08.2011.

2.2 On 17.05.2014, the complainant, Rajulbhai Ramjibhai Parmar, FSO, visited the premises of Ansh Footwear, Shop No. 10, Shehaj Complex, Bajrangwadi Road, Rajkot, along with panch witness Rajendrasinh Jayendrasinh Rana.

2.3 After introducing himself as FSO, he asked for the identification of the accused, who identified himself as Shailesh Jentilal Mehta, owner of the abovementioned premises. He further disclosed that he personally manages the shop, where he stored ghee, divel (oil for lamps), and oil for vehicles for sale.

2.4 The complainant thereafter filed a written complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging offences under Sections 26(1), 26(2)(i), 26(2)(ii), and 26(2)(v) read with Sections 57 and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, against accused Shailesh Jentilal Mehta, Food Business Operator (FBO) of Ansh Footwear, along with relevant documents, after obtaining written consent from the Commissioner of Food Safety, Gandhinagar, Gujarat.

2.5 After completion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the present Applicant under Section 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act read with Section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, sentencing him to simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of ₹10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only); in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He was further convicted under Section 57(i) of the said Act read with Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of ₹3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only); in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

3. Issue Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule for the respondent–State, and learned Advocate Mr. Jeet Patel waives service for the respondent.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the sentence imposed, there are no fair chances of the matter being taken up in the near future, and if the Applicant is not released on bail, the entire purpose of the appeal would be frustrated. Since conviction is for 1 month only.

5. Interim relief in terms of paragraph 6(b) is granted, and the sentence imposed vide judgment and order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2022, as well as the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal), Rajkot, in Criminal Case No. 100013 of 2015, shall remain susp