[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Gurubachchansingh Gurudevsingh Atthi vs A.M.Shah,Food Inspector on 21 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/533/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
FOOD ADULTRATION ACT) NO. 533 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
GURUBACHCHANSINGH GURUDEVSINGH ATTHI
Versus
A.M.SHAH,FOOD INSPECTOR & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR VANDAN K BAXI(5863) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS PRACHITI V SHAH(9990) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NANAVATI & NANAVATI(1933) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN H. RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 21/04/2026
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
05.03.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Jagadiya in Criminal Case No.1301 of 2006, by which the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/533/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
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-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/533/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/533/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
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 05.03.2010 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Jagadiya in Criminal Case No.1301 of
2006, as well as judgment dated 03.09.2015 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.26 of 2013, by the learned 2 nd (Ad-hoc) Additional
Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar, District - Bharuch, 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/533/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
and deducted out of the fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) as
mentioned hereinabove.
7) Previous surety bond of the applicant - accused stands
discharged.
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
