BHUPATBHAI KARAMSIBHAI MAKWANAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.RA/238/2010                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

       R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 238 of 2010


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

============================================

             Approved for Reporting                       Yes          No

============================================
             BHUPATBHAI KARAMSIBHAI MAKWANA
                             Versus
                  STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR CHETAN K PANDYA(1973) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                              Date : 01/04/2026

                                      JUDGMENT


1)       By way of present revision application under Sections 397 read

         with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant

         – original accused has prayed for quashing and setting aside the

         judgment       and   order    of    conviction     and    sentence      dated

         12.04.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class

         (Muni) Court, Surat in PFA Case No.34 of 2000, by which the

         applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under




                                       Page 1 of 5
     R/CR.RA/238/2010                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026




         Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act

         (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “Act” for short) and

         sentenced for a period of two years of simple imprisonment with

         fine of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand), and in default of

         payment        of   fine   further   to   undergo     two    months      simple

         imprisonment. The said order was assailed by way of filing

         Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2002, wherein, vide order dated

         30.01.2009 passed by the learned 6th Additional District &

         Sessions Judge, Surat, the appeal came to be dismissed and the

         order of the trial Court has been confirmed and upheld in the

         appeal. Hence, the present Revision Application is filed by the

         applicants-accused.


2)       Learned Advocate for the applicants has submitted that both the

         Courts have committed error in convicting the applicant as the

         applicant had purchased groundnut oil from Hansraj Oil Mills of

         Surat and the Food Inspector took sample from the packed tin of

         groundnut oil. The applicant being a retailer is not responsible

         for any adulteration that might have been found in a packed tin.

         Further, there is no evidence on record which shows that the

         applicant has manufactured the groundnut oil. Further the

         established procedure of collecting sample and sealing procedure

         was not followed. Even the Food Inspector has admitted in his

         cross examination that the applicant is not the manufacturer. He



                                         Page 2 of 5
     R/CR.RA/238/2010                            JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026




         has further submitted that no any offence was made out under

         Section 7 and 16 of the Act. Both the Courts have failed to

         appreciate the evidence on record. He has further submitted that

         though the applicant is having good case on merits but he has

         further requested to consider subsequent amendment in the Act

         by which Sections 51 and 52 of the Food Safety and Standard

         Act, have been amended and under the said sections only fine is

         to be imposed. Therefore, he has requested to maintain the

         conviction but modify the sentence and impose fine only and

         requested to take lenient view.


3)       Learned Advocate for the respondent no.1 Surat Municipal

         Corporation and respondent no.2 – State have supported the

         case and the judgment of both the Courts and submitted that no

         interference of this Court is required. Both the Advocates have

         fairly admitted that herein charge against the accused is qua

         sub-standardization of goods.


4)       Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties

         and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, it

         appears that the accused is convicted for sub-standard of the

         goods and the case was registered under Prevention of Food

         Adulteration Act, 1954, after which the Food Safety & Standard

         Act, 2006 came to be passed. In view of provision of Sections 51

         and 52 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, only penalty



                                  Page 3 of 5
     R/CR.RA/238/2010                              JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026




         or levy of fine is contemplated. In such circumstances, in light of

         the judgment in      Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan,

         reported in (2018) 17 SCC 448, and Triloki Chand v. State

         of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 763, as

         per which in cases where the article is found to be substandard,

         only penalty in the form of fine is required to be imposed.

         Therefore, this Court is of the view that a sentence of fine of

         Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) will serve the ends of

         justice in place of simple imprisonment of three months.


5)       Accordingly, present revision application is partly allowed. The

         judgment dated 12.04.2002 passed by the learned Judicial

         Magistrate First Class (Muni) Court, Surat in PFA Case No.34 of

         2000, as well as judgment dated 30.01.2009 passed in Criminal

         Appeal No.17 of 2002, by the learned 6 th Additional District &

         Sessions Judge, Surat, are upheld. However, the order of

         quantum of sentence is modified by imposing a sentence of fine

         of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) upon the accused in lieu

         of simple imprisonment of two years.



6)       The applicant has already deposited fine of Rs.25,000/- before

         the learned trial Court on 15.04.2002 vide receipt no.146,

         hence, the said amount is liable to be adjusted towards sentence

         of fine as mentioned hereinabove.




                                   Page 4 of 5
     R/CR.RA/238/2010                                                              JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026




7)        Previous surety bonds of the applicant – accused stands

          discharged.


8)        Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned

          Court forthwith. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.




                                                                           (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 01/04/2026 17:51:17




                                                       Page 5 of 5