In cases involving the sale of sub-standard food products, the sentence should be modified from imprisonment to a fine, aligning with the provisions of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 and relevant Supreme Court precedents.

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 05.03.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadiya in Criminal Case No.1301 of 2006, by which the applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7(i)(v) 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.26 of 2013, wherein, vide order dated 03.09.2015 passed by the learned 2nd (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar, District - Bhrauch, 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 below ought to have appreciated the fact that no proper procedure was followed at the time of collecting sample of Curd (Dahi) as prescribed under Rule 14 of the PFA, by the respondent no.1. He has further submitted that both the Courts have committed error in convicting the applicant as there are discrepancies in the Public Analyst Report of the Fsl and Report of Central Food Laboratory. He has further submitted that the respondent no.1 has stated in his deposition that the sample was collected in a dry and moist-less jar but in the cross-examination he has stated that he was not aware that who has cleaned the said jar. He has further submitted that the panch witness was not available as he went abroad and only on the basis of the deposition of the complainant who is an interested witness, conviction order was passed. He has further submitted that though the applicant is having good case on merits but 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 respondent no.2 – State has supported the case and the judgment of both the Courts and submitted that no interference of this Court is required. He has 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 has been 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 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 sent