Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed a criminal revision application challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Himmatnagar, dated 05/02/2013, which reversed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The case originated from a complaint by a Food Inspector who visited the shop of the respondent-accused and purchased a sample of Mohanthal. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported that the percentage of Tartrazine Yellow colour was higher than the permissible limit under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Rules. After obtaining the necessary sanction, a complaint was lodged. The trial court, after recording evidence, convicted the accused under Sections 2(1-a)(a), (j), and (m) read with Sections 7(1) and 7(5) of the Act, punishable under Section 16(1), sentencing him to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000. The appellate court reversed this decision. The State argued that the appellate court's order was without sufficient reasons and that the sanction and evidence were properly produced. The High Court found that the appellate court had not assigned cogent reasons for reversing the conviction, despite the trial court's well-reasoned judgment based on evidence. The High Court allowed the revision application, quashed the appellate court's order, and restored the trial court's conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Conviction and Sentence - Appellate Reversal - The appellate court reversed the conviction without providing sufficient and cogent reasons, despite the trial court's finding of guilt based on evidence including the Public Analyst report showing excess Tartrazine Yellow. Held that the appellate court's order was ex facie illegal and arbitrary, warranting restoration of the trial court's conviction (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the conviction and sentence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, without assigning sufficient and cogent reasons.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, quashed the appellate court's order dated 05/02/2013, and restored the trial court's judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19/01/2012.
Law Points
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Sections 2(1-a)(a)
- (j)
- (m)
- 7(1)
- 7(5)
- 16(1)
- Appellate court's reversal without cogent reasons
- Sanction order validity
- Public Analyst report as evidence
