Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kailash Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 14944 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
KAILASH JAIN S/O SHRI RAMESHCHANDRA JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O
KAILASH KIRANA STORES BERCHHA GAONROAD
WARD NO.14 BERCHHA MANDI SHAJAPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH FOOD SAFETY
OFFICER FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION DISTT.
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SAGAR MULEY - P.L.)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.18038/2023, which is an application for condonation
of delay.
2. For the reasons stated in the application and considering the fact that
the appeal is arising out of conviction, the application is allowed and the delay is
condoned.
3. With the aforesaid, I.A. No.18038/2023 is disposed off.
4. Counsel for the appellant submits that under the similar facts and
circumstances, a Criminal Appeal filed by the present appellant has been partly
allowed and the fine amount has been reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to
Rs.50,000/-. He referred the order dated 16/1/2024 passed in Cr.A
No.14945/2023.
5. The aforesaid submission is not disputed by the counsel for the State.
6. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 71(6) of the Food
Safety and Standard Act, 2006 by the appellant being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 13.04.2023 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions
Judge, District-Shajapur in Cr. A. No.18/2021 whereby learned Judge,
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 14.01.2021 passed by
Additional District Magistrate & Adjudicating Officer, District-Shajapur in Case
No.8B-121/2020-21/Food Safety/2021 whereby the appellant been imposed
with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Sections 3(1)(zx) & 26(2)(ii)(v) of Food
Safety and Standard Act, 2006 and Rule 2.1.1 (10) of Food Safety and
Standards Regulation, 2011 read with Sections 51 & 58 of Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
7 . Prosecution story in brief is that on 31.07.2019 at about 1.30 pm,
Food Safety Officer reached the appellant's shop Kailash Kirana Stores, and
complying with due formalities inspected the products in presence of the
independent witnesses, wherein it was found that Dholpur Fresh Desi Ghee was
being sold out and stored for sale for human consumption, therefore, after
completing the requisite procedures took 4 packets of Dholpur Fresh Desi
Ghee (500 ml each) as samples with the consent of the FBO Kailash Jain and
complainant also filed all the information on form VA and took the
acknowledgement of the appellant on other copy. Thereafter, alleged samples
were divided into four parts for sample and separately sealed with slip No.
RFD/SJR/23/2019/55593 and was wrapped up by thick paper on each sample
and all samples were sealed separately with brass seal. Samples were sent to lab
for testing.
8 . Appellant received a notice from Learned Additional District
Magistrate, Shajapur under Rule 2011 of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006.
Thereafter, appellant submitted his reply in written statement and subsequently,
on due investigation, an order was passed against the appellant by imposing a
fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 49 of 'the Act'. Appellant preferred an
appeal under Section 70 of 'the Act', which was rejected by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge by confirming the order of the Learned Additional
District Magistrate. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant has
approached this Court.
9 . Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has
purchased and product from branded company and original bill was also taken.
The proceedings before the Additional District Magistrate were against the
principles of natural justice. Further counsel submitted that the appellant is a
small shopkeeper and totally depended on his shop for earning his livelihood.
The appellant being a poor person, such higher amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as
penalty is against the mandate of Section 49 of the Act, therefore, counsel
prayed that looking to the financial condition of the appellant, the appeal be
allowed and penalty imposed against the appellant be reduced from
Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.
1 0 . Learned Govt. Advocate opposed the prayer by submitting that
looking to the nature of offence, no case is made out for interference, and hence
the appeal be rejected.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. On due consideration of the rival submissions so also the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that both the Courts below
have not committed any error in appreciation of evidence available on record
and hence no infirmity is found in the impugned order passed by both the
Courts below, accordingly, the same is upheld. However, looking to the
submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view
that the fine amount imposed against the appellant be reduced from
Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. The appellant is directed to deposit the fine
amount, after adjusting the fine amount if already deposited within a period of
one month from today till then it is directed that no coercive action shall be
taken against the appellant. It is made clear that in case of default in depositing
the fine amount within the stipulated period concerned authorities are at liberty
to proceed against the appellant in accordance with law.
13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, criminal appeal is
partly allowed and stands disposed off.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
PK
