JUDGMENT

1) By way of present revision application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant – original accused has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandevi in Criminal Case No.333 of 1996, by which the applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7(2) for violation of Section 16(1)(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “Act” for short) and sentenced for a period of six months of simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand), and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month simple imprisonment. The said order was assailed by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2004, wherein, vide order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, 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 applicant as the Food Inspector had purchased three sealed packets of “Lime Achar” and the same were drawn as sample without following established procedure for collecting the sample. He has further submitted that the sanction order is silent qua the manufacturer for there was no explanation offered by the prosecution. He has further submitted that the sample was declared mis-branded only because no batch, lot or code numbers were mentioned on the label and was admittedly not adulterated. He has further submitted that though the applicant is 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 mis-branded 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 is convicted for selling mis-branded 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 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 substandard, only penalty in the form of fine is required to be imposed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that a sentence of fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) will serve the ends of justice in place of simple imprisonment of six months.

5) Accordingly, present revision application is partly allowed. The judgment dated 02.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandevi in Criminal Case No.333 of 1996, as well as judgment dated 31.05.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, are upheld. However, the order of quantum of sentence is modified by imposing a sentence of fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) upon the accused in lieu of simple imprisonment of six months,