Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Mahesh Jayantilal Rana, filed a Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.09.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2016. The trial court had convicted the respondent-accused on 13th May 2016 for an offence committed in the year 2008 under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appellate court acquitted the accused, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan. The applicant contended that the appellate court erred in applying that judgment, as the contravention of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was proved on record. However, upon perusal of the Public Analyst's report, the High Court found that the food article in question was substandard but not injurious to health, i.e., it did not fall within the unsafe category. The court held that for substandard food not injurious to health, only penalty or levy of fine is contemplated under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and not criminal prosecution. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Food Safety - Substandard Food - Acquittal - The court considered whether the appellate court correctly acquitted the accused when the food article was found to be substandard but not injurious to health - Held that if the article is substandard and does not fall within the unsafe category, only penalty or fine is contemplated under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and criminal prosecution is not warranted (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court erred in acquitting the accused on the ground that the food article was substandard and not injurious to health, and whether the judgment in Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan was applicable
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Application, upholding the acquittal of the respondent-accused.
Law Points
- Substandard food not injurious to health does not attract criminal liability under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- only penalty under Food Safety and Standards Act
- 2006 is applicable
- acquittal upheld where food article is substandard but not unsafe
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 315
R/Criminal Revision Application (Against Acquittal) No. 387 of 2018
Mr. Kaushal D. Pandya for the applicant, Mr. Malay S. Patel for respondent No.1, Mr. Rohan Reavl, APP for respondent No.2
Vijaybhai Ramniklal Manak & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Revision Application against acquittal in a food adulteration case
Remedy Sought
Quash and set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 08.09.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2016
Filing Reason
The applicant challenged the acquittal of the respondent-accused for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, arguing that the appellate court erred in relying on Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the accused on 13th May 2016 for an offence committed in 2008; appellate court acquitted the accused on 08.09.2017
Issues
Whether the appellate court erred in acquitting the accused on the ground that the food article was substandard and not injurious to health
Whether the judgment in Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan was applicable to the facts of the case
Submissions/Arguments
Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the appellate court committed an error in relying on Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan, which is not applicable to the facts of the present case, even though contravention of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is proved on record.
Ratio Decidendi
If the food article in question is substandard in nature and does not fall within the category of unsafe food (injurious to health), then only penalty or levy of fine is contemplated under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and criminal prosecution is not warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
If the article in question is substandard in nature and does not fall within the category of unsafe food, then, relying upon the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, only penalty or levy of fine is contemplated.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the accused on 13th May 2016 for an offence committed in 2008 under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The accused appealed, and the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat acquitted the accused on 08.09.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2016. The applicant then filed the present Criminal Revision Application before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954:
- Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006:
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 397, Section 401
