Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Hasanali Sulemanbhai Sunsara and another, were convicted by the 11th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand, in Criminal Case No. 3802 of 2008 for offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(1) and 16(1)(a)(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with Sections 7(1), 7(5) and Rule 29 of the said Act. They were sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,500 each, with default simple imprisonment. The conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anand, in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2012 on 03.10.2013. The applicants then filed a revision application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Gujarat High Court. The core legal issue was whether the use of synthetic colour in chana masala sabji is prohibited under the Act. The applicants argued that Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 permits synthetic colour in certain food articles, and chana masala sabji is not among the prohibited items. The High Court, after hearing the arguments, found that the courts below had misapplied Rule 29 and misinterpreted Sections 7 and 16 of the Act. The court held that since synthetic colour is permissible in chana masala sabji under Rule 29, no offence is made out. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence were quashed and set aside, and the applicants were acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Synthetic Colour - Permissibility - Rule 29 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Sections 7, 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - The applicants were convicted for selling chana masala sabji containing synthetic colour, but Rule 29 permits synthetic colour in certain articles including chana masala sabji. The courts below misinterpreted the rule and convicted the applicants. Held that the conviction is unsustainable as the use of synthetic colour in chana masala sabji is permissible under Rule 29. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicants under Sections 16(1)(a)(1) and 16(1)(a)(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for using synthetic colour in chana masala sabji is sustainable when Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 permits such colour in the said article.
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.12.2012 passed by the 11th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand in Criminal Case No.3802 of 2008 and the judgment dated 03.10.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anand in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2012 are quashed and set aside. The applicants are acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955 permits synthetic colour in certain food articles
- chana masala sabji is not prohibited
- Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954 must be read with Rule 29
- conviction based on misinterpretation of law is unsustainable
