IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 627 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

HASANALI SULEMANBHAI SUNSARA & ANR.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ============================================

Appearance:

MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================

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 10.12.2012 in Criminal Case No.3802 of 2008, passed by the learned 11th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand, by which the applicants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)(1) and 16(1)(a)(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “Act” for short) for violation of Section 7(1), 7(5) and Rule 29 of the said act, and sentenced for a period of one year of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,500/- (Two Thousand Five Hundred), each and in default to undergo further one month simple imprisonment. The said order was assailed by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2012, wherein, vide judgment dated 03.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anand, 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 by relying on Rule 29 of the Act and misinterpreted the provisions of Sections 7 and 16 of the Act. The said rule is applicable to limited articles so far sample of chana masala sabji is concerned synthetic colour is permissible and as per Rule 29 synthetic colour is permissible no offence is made out. Further no proper sample was collected and committed error in relying the conviction and sentence. There was no violation of Rule 29 and hence requested to allow the present application. He has further submitted to consider provisions of Sections 51 and 52 of the Food Safety and Standard Act and requested to modify the sentence by taking a lenient view.

3) Learned APP for the respondent – State has submitted that both the Courts have not committed any error as sunset yellow synthetic food colour was found which violates Rule 29 which is not permissible. Hence, when sub-standard sample is found then conviction is properly recorded. Even opportunity to reanalyse the sample was given but the applicants failed to exercise their rights. Hence, requested to dismiss the present application.

4) Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record it appears that from the sample of chana masala sabji synthetic food colour sunset yellow is found which is undisputed fact. Though notice was served and mandatory requirement was followed but the accused failed to get reanalyse the sample and send it to the laboratory. As per Rule 28 read with Rules 29 and 30, the use of synthetic food colour is not permissible as it is not consumable. Hence, once sample is found sub-standard without discussing further on merits and in view of provision of Sections 51 and 52 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, only penalty or levy of fine is required. In such circumstances, in light of the judgment in Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2018) 17 SCC 448, and Triloki Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 763, as per which in cases where the article is found to be substandar