High Court of Gujarat

G K UPADHYAY - FOOD INSPECTOR (OR HIS SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE)versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Disposal: 39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH
Bench: HASMUKH D SUTHAR

Holding

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's order, finding no error in its reliance on Nemi Chand and concluding that only a fine, not a conviction, was appropriate for substandard food.

Summary

G.K. Upadhyay, a food inspector, filed a criminal revision seeking to set aside the Sessions Court's order dated 5 October 2010, alleging that the court erred by relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan, which the applicant claimed was inapplicable despite evidence of contravention of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The High Court examined the public analyst's report and concluded that the food in question was substandard, not unsafe, and therefore only a monetary penalty under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 was appropriate. The Court held that the Sessions Judge had correctly applied the law, following the reasoning in Nemi Chand and Triloki Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, leaving the Sessions Court's order intact.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court's judgment in Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan is applicable to the present case involving alleged food adulteration.
Whether the offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act warrants conviction or merely a fine under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 when the food is substandard but not unsafe.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Food adulterationFood safetyCriminal revisionPenalty vs convictionPublic analyst reportSubstandard foodLegal interpretation

Judgment

     R/CR.RA/622/2010                             JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 622
                          of 2010


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================

             Approved for Reporting              Yes          No

==========================================================
 G K UPADHYAY - FOOD INSPECTOR (OR HIS SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE)
                           Versus
                  STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RAKESH B SHARMA(2521) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                             Date : 12/03/2026
                             ORAL JUDGMENT


1.       By way of present application the applicant seeks the
following relief:


         “C Allow this Criminal Revision Application by quashing and
         setting aside the judgment and order dated 05.10.2010 passed
         by the learned Sessions judge Surat in Criminal Appeal No.11
         of 2005.


2.       Heard learned advocate for the respective parties.


3.       Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
learned appellate court has committed an error in relying upon
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

                                 Page 1 of 3
     R/CR.RA/622/2010                         JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2018) 17
SCC 448, which is not applicable to the facts of the present
case, even though the contravention of the provisions of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is proved on record.
Therefore, the present petition may be allowed.


3.       Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and having gone through the documents produced on
record, it appears that the learned trial court was pleased to
record the conviction on 30.03.2005 for an offence committed in
the year 2002.



4.       On perusal of the Public Analyst’s report, it appears that
the case does not fall within the category of food which is
injurious to health (unsafe category). 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 has not committed any error, more particularly in light of
the judgment in Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan (supra). A
similar view has also been taken in Triloki Chand v. State of
Himachal Pradesh, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 763. In cases
where the article is found to be substandard, only penalty in the
form of fine is required to be imposed.



5.       In view of the above, no interference is required in the
order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the same does



                               Page 2 of 3
      R/CR.RA/622/2010                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




not call for any interference with the findings recorded by the
Sessions Court. Hence, the present Revision Application stands
dismissed.


                                                                   (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI




      Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
      Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 12/03/2026 17:43:00




                                              Page 3 of 3

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Food adulteration"Sign in to search