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 15.10.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kutiana in Criminal Case No.148 of 1996, by which the applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7(1), 7(2), 7(5) 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 six months of simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand), and in default of payment of fine to undergo further one month simple imprisonment. The said order was assailed by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.04 of 2003, wherein, vide order dated 29.03.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Porbandar, 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 applicant has submitted that both the Courts have committed error in convicting the applicant though the applicant is a polio person form the childhood and he is not the Proprietor of the shop. He has further submitted that the complainant at the time of collecting sample of chilly powder has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act. He has further submitted that though the applicant 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 APP for the respondent – State has supported the case and the judgment of both the Courts and submitted that no interference of this Court is required. The learned APP has submitted that 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 has been convicted for sub-standard of the chilly powder 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.5,000/- (Five 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 15.10.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kutiana, in Criminal Case No.148 of 1996, as well as judgment dated 29.03.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No.04 of 2003, by the learned Sessions Judge, Porbandar, are upheld. However, the order of quantum of sentence is modified by imposing a sentence of fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) each upon the accused in lieu of simple imprisonment of six months, which shall be deposited before the learned trial Court within four weeks from today.

6) It is further directed that the fine, if any, deposited by the accused before the learned Trial Court is liable to be adjusted and deducted out of the fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) as mentioned hereinabove.