IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 175 of 2009 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ============================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ============================================

SAMPATLAL DHULCHAND JAIN & ANR.

Versus SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR CHINTAN S POPAT(5004) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 18/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1) By way of present revision application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants – original accused have prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.10.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Muni) Court, Surat in PFA Case No.43 of 2001, by which the applicants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 2(IX)(k) and 7(2) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “Act for short) and sentenced for a period of three months of simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- (Five Hundred), each and in default of payment of fine. The said order was assailed by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2002, wherein, vide order dated 27.11.2008 passed by the learned 6^th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Surat, the appeal came to be dismissed and the order of the trial Court has been confirmed and upheld in the appeal. Hence, the present Revision Application is filed by the applicants-accused.

2) Learned Advocate for the applicants has submitted that both the Courts have committed error in convicting the applicants though there was muddamal of Masala Soda bottles but nowhere saccharine is mentioned which is one of the ingredients and there was only breach of provisions of Section 42 and 47 of the Act and the alleged muddamal was not adulterated. He has further submitted that no any offence was made out under Section 7 and 16 of the Act and if alleged case is falling under misbranding, at no point of time the prosecution is able to prove breach of Section 7(2) of the Act. Though the learned JMFC came to the conclusion that the breach is not proved and it is also not proved that the accused have sold adulterated or sub-

quality cold-drinks however contrary to this the conviction is recorded. Both the Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence on record. He has further submitted that though the applicants having good case on merits but he has further requested to consider subsequent amendment in the Act by which Sections 51 and 52 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, have been amended and under the said sections only fine is to be imposed. Therefore, he has requested to maintain the conviction but modify the sentence and impose fine only and requested to take lenient view.

3) Learned Advocate for the respondent no.1 Surat Municipal Corporation and respondent no.2 – State have supported the case and the judgment of both the Courts and submitted that no interference of this Court is required. Both the Advocates have fairly admitted that herein charge against the accused is qua sub-standardization of goods.

4) Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the accused are convicted for sub-standard of the goods and the case was registered under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, after which the Food Safety & Standard Act, 2006 came to be passed. In view of provision of Sections 51 and 52 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, only penalty or levy of fine is contemplated. In such circumstances, in light of the judgment in Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2018) 17 SCC 448, and Trilok