Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by the Food Inspector against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Surat, dated 05.10.2010, which acquitted the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2005. The applicant sought to quash the acquittal and restore the conviction recorded by the trial court on 30.03.2005 for an offence committed in 2002 under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The core legal issue was whether the food article in question, found to be substandard but not injurious to health, could sustain a criminal conviction. The applicant argued that the appellate court erred in relying on Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 17 SCC 448, which was not applicable to the facts. However, the High Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the Public Analyst's report, found that the article did not fall within the category of unsafe food. Relying on Nemi Chand and Triloki Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 763, the court held that substandard food attracts only penalty or fine under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and not criminal conviction. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Food Adulteration - Substandard Food - Penalty vs. Conviction - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - The court considered whether conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is sustainable when the food article is substandard but not injurious to health - Held that substandard food not falling in the unsafe category attracts only penalty or fine under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and not criminal conviction - The appellate court's acquittal was upheld (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court erred in acquitting the accused when contravention of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was proved, but the food article was substandard and not unsafe.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge. The court held that since the food article was substandard and not unsafe, only penalty under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is attracted, and no criminal conviction is warranted.
Law Points
- Substandard food not injurious to health attracts only penalty under Food Safety and Standards Act
- 2006
- not criminal conviction under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan
- (2018) 17 SCC 448 applied
- Triloki Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- (2020) 10 SCC 763 followed
Case Details
R/Criminal Revision Application (Against Acquittal) No. 623 of 2010
Mr. Kaushal D. Pandya for the applicant, Mr. Rakesh B. Sharma for respondents No. 2,3, Mr. Rohan Raval, APP for respondent No. 1
G K Upadhyay - Food Inspector (or his successor in office)
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
The applicant (Food Inspector) sought quashing and setting aside of the judgment and order dated 05.10.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surat, in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2005, which acquitted the respondents.
Filing Reason
The applicant contended that the appellate court erred in relying on Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan, which was not applicable, and that contravention of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was proved on record.
Previous Decisions
The trial court convicted the accused on 30.03.2005 for an offence committed in 2002. The appellate court (Sessions Judge, Surat) acquitted the accused on 05.10.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2005.
Issues
Whether the appellate court erred in acquitting the accused when contravention of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was proved.
Whether substandard food not injurious to health attracts criminal conviction or only penalty.
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 case, even though contravention of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was proved on record.
Ratio Decidendi
Substandard food that is not injurious to health does not warrant criminal conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; only penalty or fine under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is applicable.
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.
In cases where the article is found to be substandard, only penalty in the form of fine is required to be imposed.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the accused on 30.03.2005 for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 committed in 2002. The accused appealed to the Sessions Court, Surat, which acquitted them on 05.10.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2005. The Food Inspector then filed the present criminal revision application in the High Court of Gujarat, which was dismissed on 12.03.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954:
- Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006:
