[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Singh Narwariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31066
1 MSA-25-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 1 st OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No. 25 of 2025
MAHENDRA SINGH NARWARIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Deependra Singh Raghuwanshi - Advocate for appellant.
Mr. S.S. Kushwaha - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This miscellaneous second appeal under Section 71(6) of the Food
Safety and Standards Act (in short "FSSA") has been filed against the order
dated 18/10/2024, passed by the First District Judge / Appellate Tribunal,
Bhind, in M.C.A. No. 24/2020, and order dated 28/09/2019, passed by the
Additional District Magistrate / Adjudicating Officer, Bhind in Case No.
24/Miscellaneous/2017 and 25/Food Safety/2016-17, by which it was held
that the Khoya, which was found in the dairy of appellant, was of
substandard quality.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that
on 12/08/2016 at about 12:30 p.m., FSO carried out the inspection of dairy of
appellant, and it was found that 90 litres of milk (mix) was stored in a drum,
90 kg of Khoya kept in three different dalias, 50 kg of Khoya spread on the
floor, 30 kg of Khoya lying on the bed, and approximately 60 kg of Ghee
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31066
2 MSA-25-2025
was stored. Accordingly, samples of Khoya as well as Ghee were collected.
The Food Analyst, vide his report dated 31/01/2017, Exhibit P25, found that
Khoya/Mawa was of substandard quality, whereas Ghee was found to be
within norms vide report Exhibit P26. Appellant did not prefer any appeal
under Section 41(6) of the FSSA. Accordingly, a complaint was filed.
3. In reply to the complaint, it was submitted by appellant that he is a
petty trader and whatever income is derived by him, his family is taken care
of. It was also claimed that he always tried to maintain cleanliness and
purity. However, on account of mistake committed by him unknowingly, he
may be pardoned.
4. The Adjudicating Officer, after recording the statement of FSO,
granted opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence but no evidence was
led, and accordingly, by order dated 28/09/2019, Additional District
Magistrate / Adjudicating Officer held the appellant guilty of offence under
Section 26 read with Section 51 of FSSA and imposed a penalty of Rs.
3,50,000/-.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred an appeal
which too has been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal by impugned order
dated 18/10/2024.
6. By referring to the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, it is
submitted by counsel for appellant that the Adjudicating Officer did not give
any opportunity to appellant to either cross-examine the FSO or to lead
evidence. It is further submitted that appellant is a petty trader, therefore,
penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- is on the higher side.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31066
3 MSA-25-2025
7. Per contra, appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for State.
8. Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties.
9. From the order sheet of Adjudicating Officer, it is clear that on
29/06/2019, evidence of the FSO was recorded but appellant did not cross-
examine him. Thereafter, by order dated 11/07/2019, case was fixed for
25/07/2019 for recording of evidence of appellant. On 25/07/2019, appellant
did not appear and the case was fixed for 22/08/2019. On 22/08/2019 also,
appellant did not lead any evidence in his defence, and accordingly, the case
was fixed for delivery of judgment on 28/09/2019.
10. Thus, it is clear that appellant was granted every opportunity to
defend himself but it was the appellant who deliberately did not cross-
examine the FSO nor he led any evidence in his defence.
11. From the seizure memo, Exhibit P11, it is clear that approximately
168 kg of Khoya/Mawa was seized from the possession of appellant and the
Khoya was found to be of substandard quality. Looking to the huge quantity
of substandard Khoya, this Court is of considered opinion that neither the
Adjudicating Officer nor the Appellate Tribunal committed any mistake by
imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/-.
12. As already pointed out, appellant was given full opportunity by the
Adjudicating Officer but it was the appellant who did not avail the same and
neither cross-examined the FSO nor led evidence in his defence.
13. No other argument is advanced by counsel for appellant.
1 4 . Ex consequenti, order dated 18/10/2024, passed by the First
District Judge / Appellate Tribunal, Bhind, in M.C.A. No. 24/2020, and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31066
4 MSA-25-2025
order dated 28/09/2019, passed by the Additional District Magistrate /
Adjudicating Officer, Bhind in Case No. 24/Miscellaneous/2017 and
25/Food Safety/2016-17, are hereby affirmed.
15. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AKS
