Case Note & Summary
The present criminal revision application was filed by the Food Inspector (or his successor in office) challenging the judgment and order dated 05.10.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2005, whereby the appellate court had acquitted the respondents (original accused) of offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The applicant sought quashing and setting aside of the acquittal order. The facts of the case pertain to an offence committed in the year 2002, for which the learned trial court had recorded conviction on 30.03.2005. The applicant's counsel argued that the learned appellate court had erroneously relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 17 SCC 448, which was not applicable to the facts of the case, even though contravention of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was proved on record. The High Court heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. Upon examination of the Public Analyst's report, the court found that the case did not fall within the category of food which is injurious to health (unsafe category). The court observed that 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. In such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge had not committed any error, particularly in light of the judgment in Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and the similar view taken in Triloki Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 763. The court held that in cases where the article is found to be substandard, only penalty in the form of fine is required to be imposed. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the acquittal of the respondents.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Food Adulteration - Substandard Food - Penalty vs. Conviction - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Where the Public Analyst's report indicates that the food article is substandard but not injurious to health (unsafe category), only penalty or levy of fine is contemplated under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and criminal conviction is not warranted - The appellate court's reliance on Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 17 SCC 448 and Triloki Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 763 was correct - Held that the Sessions Judge did not commit any error in acquitting the accused (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court erred in acquitting the accused when contravention of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was proved, given that the food article was substandard but not unsafe/injurious to health
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, holding that the learned Sessions Judge did not commit any error in acquitting the accused, as the food article was substandard but not injurious to health, and only penalty or fine is contemplated under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Law Points
- Substandard food not injurious to health attracts only penalty or fine under Food Safety and Standards Act
- 2006
- not criminal conviction under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
