[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Tarachand Bhagwatilal Jain vs State Of Gujarat on 22 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/519/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 519 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
TARACHAND BHAGWATILAL JAIN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR MB RANA(2760) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 22/04/2026
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
07.11.2003 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
Court No.3, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.29 of 1997, by
which the applicant was convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 16(1)A(i) for violation of Section 7 of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (which shall hereinafter be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/519/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
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
15 days simple imprisonment. The said order was assailed by
way of filing Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2023, wherein, vide order
dated 06.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions
Judge, Court No.15, 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 below ought to have appreciated the fact that no proper
procedure was followed at the time of collecting sample of salt of
Ujjaini Brand as prescribed under Rule 14 of the PFA, by the
respondent no.2. He has further submitted that both the Courts
have committed error in not considering the fact that the
applicant has purchased the salt from Ujjaini Salt Traders, who
is accused no.2 before the learned trial Court, and whereby the
invoices were also produced before the learned trial Court. He
has further submitted that as per the Report of Public Analyst
the sample was received on 07.08.1997 and was analysed and
report was prepared on 11.09.1997 i.e. approx after one month.
He has further submitted that the panch witness is also not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/519/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
supporting the complainant and contradictory. 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.1 - State has supported the
case and judgments of both the Courts and submitted that no
interference of this Court is required. He has fairly admitted 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/519/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
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 07.11.2003 passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Court no.6, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.29 of
1997, as well as judgment dated 06.08.2009 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.33 of 2003, by the learned Additional City Sessions
Judge, Court No.15, 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 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.
7) Previous surety bond of the applicant - accused stands
discharged.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/519/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
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
