Gujarat High Court
Arvindbhai Chhotalal Shrama vs S.K Patel on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/816/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
FOOD ADULTRATION ACT) NO. 816 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
ARVINDBHAI CHHOTALAL SHRAMA
Versus
S.K PATEL & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR. MR BUKHARI(6919) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MRS KALPANA K RAVAL(1046) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN H. RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 30/04/2026
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 30.09.2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.33 of 1999, by which the applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7(i) and 16(1)A(i) of the Prevention of Food Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:44:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/816/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined Adulteration Act (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "Act" for short) and sentenced for a period of six months of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand), and in default of payment of fine to undergo further 30 days simple imprisonment. The said order was assailed by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2005, wherein, vide order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, 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 applicant-accused.
2) Learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that both the Courts have committed error in convicting the applicant. He has further submitted that the applicant is accused no.2 and the accused no.1 is father of the petitioner in whose name the license to carry on the business was issued by the Corporation has expired on 03.02.2015 and therefore he has not been made a party to the present application. He has further submitted that in absence of legal nexus between the applicant and his father such as relationship of principal and agent or master and servant no conviction can be awarded. He has further submitted that the sample was taken at night in the bottle which was not cleaned properly by the Food Inspector. He has further submitted that Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:44:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/816/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 by imposing 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 was convicted for sub-standard of the good i.e. mawa (concentrated milk) 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 Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:44:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/816/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 three months.
5) Accordingly, present revision application is partly allowed. The judgment dated 30.09.2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad, as well as judgment dated 17.07.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2005, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, are upheld. However, the order of quantum of sentence is modified by imposing a sentence of fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) upon the accused in lieu of rigorous 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.
7) Previous surety bonds of the applicant - accused stand discharged.
Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:44:01 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/816/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined
8) Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT JANSARI Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:44:01 IST 2026