[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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.
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
