Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikas vs Indore Nagar Palik Nigam Indore on 21 May, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3379 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
VIKAS S/O SHRI MANGILAL JAIN OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS PROPRIETOR JAIN MITHAI BHANDAR 16 A.B.
ROAD MALHAR GARDEN KE SAMNE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI AKASH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
INDORE NAGAR PALIK NIGAM INDORE THR. FOOD
SAFETY OFFICER VIVEK GANGRADE INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI MANU MAHESHWARI, ADVOCATE)
Heard on :14.5.2024
Pronounced on: 21.05.2024
This revisions coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
1.With the consent of both the parties, the matter heard finally.
2.This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated
09.11.2021, passed by the 17th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in
Cr.A.No.100076/2014, whereby learned Judge has partly allowed the appeal and
modified the order dated 23.5.2012 by reducing the fine amount from Rs. 3,00,000/- to
Rs. 2,00,000/- and affirmed the remaining part of the order passed by the learned
Adjudicating Officer/Additional Collector, District- Indore, in Case No. 04/2012
whereby the petitioner has been imposed fine amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under Sections
52 and 58 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 in violation of Sections 23, 26(2)
(ii), of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
3.Prosecution story in brief is that on 17/10/2011, the complainant-Food Safety
officer visited the premises of appellant and Purchased pre-packed poly packets of
Navrang Mixture for examination from food laboratory and such purchased sample of
Namkeen was sent by complainant to Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Bhopal and as per
report of food analyst, the sample of Navrang Mixture was found Mis-branded. The
respondent/appellant was served with a notice regarding misbranded item in terms of
rule 3.1.1. (6) of the Food Act and thereafter, on the basis of report of food Analyst,
the complainant has filed a complaint against the appellant/respondent for violation of
sections 23, 26 (1), 26 (2) (ii) (V) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The
Adjudicating officer has tried matter and finally held guilty the petitioner for the
violation/infringement of sections 23, 26 (1), 26 (2) (ii) (V) punishable under sections
52 & 58 of Food Safety & Standard Act, 2006. The adjudicating officer has imposed a
fine of Rs. 300000/- for .the offence committed by the petitioner. Against which, the
petitioner has preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by reducing the fine
amount from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- and affirmed the remaining part of the
order. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way
of filing this criminal revision.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has
misbranded the product and batch number and packing date have not been mentioned on
the label, but petitioner has himself admitted the fact. The proceedings before the
Additional Collector were against the principles of natural justice. However, in course
of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of learned
trial Court as well as Appellate Court has no infirmity with regard to findings that the
petitioner is liable for violation of the Act. He has also confined in his argument only
on the point of penalty and requested that since the petitioner is a poor person, such
higher amount of fine is against the mandate of the Section 49 of the Act and therefore,
he has requested to reduce the amount of penalty. Hence, the revision be allowed and
the penalty imposed upon the petitioner be reduced.
5.Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer by submitting that
looking to the nature of offence, no case is made out for interference, and hence the
present petition be rejected.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7.As per Section 49 of the Act, 2006, it is the duty of the learned Adjudicating
Officer to assess as to whether, on account of such contravention of the act 2006, the
petitioner has gained unfair advantages and as to how much loss has been caused to any
person as a result of such contravention. The relevant portion of Section 49 of the Act
is reproduced here as under :-
49. General provisions relating to penalty.-While adjudging the
quantum of penalty under this Chapter, the Adjudicating Officer or the
Tribunal, as the case may be, shall have due regard to the following:-
(a) the amount of gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made
as a result of the contravention,
(b) the amount of loss caused or likely to cause to any person as a result
of the contravention,
(c) the repetitive nature of the contravention,
(d) whether the contravention is without his knowledge, and
(e) any other relevant factor.
8. In view of aforesaid provision, the learned adjudicating officer is also bound
to examine as to whether the contravention occurred without his knowledge or with his
knowledge, as well as how much undue advantage was obtained by the petitioner by
doing business with said samples. However, the learned trial court as well as the learned
Appellate Court has not contemplated the above parameters of the Act 2006, which are
mandatory. As per the law laid down, the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate
Court are bound to consider the effect of said misbranding on human life. Learned
Courts below have not given any finding regarding the fact that due to the misbranding.
the food sample has become unsafe for human consumption. On this aspect, the law laid
down in the case of Nemi Chand vs State of Rajasthan (2016) 2 AICLR 479 and the
case of Harish Dayani Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2020 (M.P.) 144 and also the
case of Purushottam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (CRR No. 3324/2019, passed on
19.7.2019), in this regard have been considered.
9. 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. 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
petitioner, this Court is of the view that the fine amount imposed against the petitioner
be reduced from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/- . The petitioner is directed to deposit
the remaining fine amount, after adjusting the fine amount if already deposited within a
period of 60 days from today till then it is directed that no coercive action shall be
taken against the petitioner. 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 petitioner in accordance with law.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, criminal revision stands
disposed of.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
VD
