[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Agarwal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2026
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23528
1 CRR-1053-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1053 of 2007
SURESH AGARWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Umesh Shrivastava along with Ms. Neelima Seth - learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Rajiv Pandey - learned P.L. for the respondent/ State.
ORDER
Record is received.
The case was admitted on 7.6.2007.
As per report of the Incharge Officer, record room Khandwa dated
11.12.2025, letter No. 395/25 in which while sending the record of the
appellate Court, it is mentioned that record of the Trial Court i.e. the Court of
Shri R.S. Sharma, CJM, Khandwa, case No. 1674/1995, judgment dated
2.3.2005 has been eliminated as per rules.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is
heard finally.
Learned CJM, Khandwa in the above mentioned case convicted the
accused under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(i a)(1) of the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, 1954 with simple imprisonment of 6 months and fine
of Rs. 2,000/-. Learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal against
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23528
2 CRR-1053-2007
conviction and sentence. The revision has been filed on multiple grounds but
at the time of hearing it is prayed by the learned counsel for the revisionist
that he is not pressing the revision against conviction but sentence may be
reduced in the light of judgment passed by Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in
CRR No. 584/2006 (Manish Kohli Vs. State of M.P. ) , judgment dated
8.2.2024 whereby the jail sentence was reduced as the new Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act has come into force but fine amount was increased to
Rs.50,000/-.
Shri Rajiv Pandey - learned P.L. has no objection if this prayer is
allowed.
This is a case of food adulteration regarding aduleration of Besan ke
laddu whereas the judgment relied upon by the appellate Court was regarding
adulteration in chilli powder.
It is seen that in the judgment of Manish Kohli (Supra), reliance was
placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court and other cases, which are as
below :-
"3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though
the applicant has some prima facie case even on merits, he does
not want to press this revision and by giving up the plea on merits,
his only submission is with regard to the sentence which has been
imposed by the courts below on the ground of changes in the law.
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 has been repealed
by the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, w.e.f. 5.8.2011 and
under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the aforesaid
punishable acts are not punishable with imprisonment and only
penalty can be imposed and the applicant / accused is entitled to
get the benefit under the changes in the law and in this regard,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23528
3 CRR-1053-2007
reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court
in Nemi Chand V. State of Rajasthan (2016) 1 FAC 561 (SC) and
clarification order reported as (2016) 1 FAC 203 , in which the
Apex court relying on the judgment of T. Barai V. Henry Ah Hoe
and another (1982 (2) FAC 362), held as under :
3. It is not in dispute that the charge against the appellant
was only of sub standardization of goods. Mr. Sushil
Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant, submits that though the appellant has some prima
facie case even on merits, he would be giving up the plea
on merits and his only submission is about the sentence
which has been imposed by the courts be- low. He has in
this behalf, argued that there has been an amend- ment in
the Act by the Central Amendment Act 34 of 1976
whereby Section 16A was added and under the said section,
only a fine is leviable. He has drawn our attention to the
judgment of this Court in 'T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe and
Another' [1982 (2) FAC 362] [1983 (1) SCC 177] wherein
this Court held that since the amend- ment was beneficial
to the accused persons, it can be applied even with respect
to earlier cases as well which are pending in the Court. In
the said judgment, the Court held as under:
"22. It is only retrospective criminal legislation that is
prohibited under Article 20(1). The prohibition contained
in Article 20(1) is that no person shall be convicted of
any offence except for violation of a law in force at the
time of the commission of the act charged as an offence
prohibits nor shall FSAT No.27/16 M/s Buttercup
Confectionery Ltd & Ors. Vs FSO Page No. 13 of 17 he
be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might
have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of
the commission of the offence. It is quite clear that
insofar as the Central Amendment Act creates new
offences or enhances punishment for a particular type of
offence no person can be convicted by such ex post facto
law nor can the enhanced punishment prescribed by the
amendment be applicable. But insofar as the Central
Amendment Act reduces the punishment for an offence
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23528
4 CRR-1053-2007
punishable under Section 16(1) (a) of the Act, there is no
reason why the accused should not have the benefit of
such reduced punishment. The rule of beneficial
construction requires that even ex post facto law of such
a type should be applied to mitigate the rigour of the law.
The principle is based both on sound reason and common
sense. This finds support in the following passage from
Crales on Statute Law, 7th Edn., at pp. 388-89:
A retrospective statute is different from an ex post
facto statute. "Every ex post facto law...." said Chase,
J., in the American case of Calder v. Bull "must
necessarily be retrospective, but every retrospective
law is not an ex post facto law. Every law that takes
away or impairs rights vested agreeably to existing
laws is retrospective, and is generally unjust and may
be oppressive; it is a good general rule that a law
should have no retrospect, but in cases in which the
laws may justly and for the benefit of the community
and also of individuals relate to a time antecedent to
their commencement: as statutes of oblivion or of
pardon. They are certainly retrospective, and literally
both concerning and after the facts committed. But I
do not consider any law ex post facto within the
prohibition that mollifies the rigour of the criminal
law, but only those that create or aggravate the crime,
or increase the punishment or change the rules of
evidence for the purpose of conviction.... There is a
great and apparent difference between making an
unlawful act lawful and the making an innocent action
criminal and punishing it as a crime."
And thereafter, Hon'ble the Apex court has given benefit of changes in
the law and substituted the sentence by penalty in case of conviction of the
adulteration of food.
4. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on a judgment of
the Apex court in Trilok Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh ,
passed in criminal appeal no. 1831/2019 decided on 1.10.2019, in
which the Apex court has also placed reliance on the judgment of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23528
5 CRR-1053-2007
T. Barai (supra) and substituted the sentence for misbranding
under the PFA Act by penalty and also placed reliance on a
judgment of M. P. High Court, Indore Bench in Purushottam vs.
State of M.P. passed in CRR No. 3324/2019 decided on
19.7.2019, in which the aforesaid case of Nemi Chand (supra) has
been relied upon and the sentence under the PFA Act with regard
to adulteration and misbranding has been substituted by penalty
and also placed reliance on a judgment of High Court of Gujarat in
Kasnab-hai v. State of Gujarat , passed in CRR No. 662/2013
decided on 22.09.2017; on a judgment of High Court of Punjab
and Haryana in Parveen Kapoor vs.Food Inspector, Chandigarh
passed in CRR No.2975/2016 decided on 23.08.2018; on a
judgment of High Court of Delhi in State of NCT of Delhi vs.
Satish Kumar (2018) 4 JCC 2111 and on a judgment of High
Court of Punjab and Haryana in Sanjay Agarwal vs. Government
Food Inspector passed in CRR No.1275/2014 decided on
15.03.2019 with regard to substitution of the sentence by penalty."
As per the charge as reflected in the appellate Court judgment the
Besan ke laddu were coloured. As per paragraph 10 of the judgment passed
by the appellate Court in those Laddus, Khesari daal powder and non-
permitted yellow coal tar colour was found, thus these laddus were
adulterated.
The old Act regarding Prevention of Food Adulteration has been
replaced by the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 in which offence under
Section 51 - Penalty for sub-standard food, therefore, penalty can be imposed
under Section 51 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 and in the light
of the judgment of Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in Manish Kohli (Supra), the
applicant is punished for the offence mentioned above with fine of Rs.
50,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, the applicant shall
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23528
6 CRR-1053-2007
undergo the sentence as imposed by the Trial Court.
Let the fine amount be deposited in the Trial Court within thirty days
from today.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VSG
