PARASMAL NATHUMAL JAINversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.RA/21/2011                             JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

       R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 21 of 2011


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

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

             Approved for Reporting             Yes          No

============================================
              PARASMAL NATHUMAL JAIN & ANR.
                              Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR DK MODI(1317) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR MEHUL H RATHOD(701) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                           Date : 08/04/2026

                               JUDGMENT


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

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

        – original accused have prayed for quashing and setting aside

        the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated

        04.04.2006 passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil

        Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palanpur, in Criminal

        Case No.59 of 1990, by which the applicants were convicted for

        the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the



                                  Page 1 of 5
     R/CR.RA/21/2011                                           JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026




        Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (which shall hereinafter be

        referred to as “Act” for short) and sentenced for a period of one

        year     simple      imprisonment      with     fine     of   Rs.1,000/-        (One

        Thousand), each and in default of payment of fine to undergo

        further one month simple imprisonment. The said order was

        assailed by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2006, wherein,

        vide order dated 03.12.2010 passed by the learned 3rd

        Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha - Palanpur, 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 applicants as the

        respondent no.2 had purchased 375 ml palmolein oil from the

        applicants and drawn the same as sample without proper and

        correct procedure. He has further submitted that the applicant

        no.1 used to store goods in a same condition as supplied to him

        by the Government. He has further submitted that the receipt at

        Exhibit        41   reveals   that   the      complainant        had     sent       the

        memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal

        the packet in unsealed packet. He has further submitted that the

        established procedure of collecting sample and sealing procedure

        was not followed. He has further submitted that no any offence



                                        Page 2 of 5
     R/CR.RA/21/2011                              JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026




        was made out under Section 7 and 16 of the Act. He has further

        submitted that though the applicants are 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 APP for the respondent – State and learned Advocate

        for the respondent no.2 Food Inspector 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 are 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

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

        the judgment in      Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan,



                                  Page 3 of 5
     R/CR.RA/21/2011                              JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026




        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.5,000/- (Five Thousand) each 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 04.04.2006 passed by the learned 4 th Additional

        Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palanpur in

        Criminal Case No.59 of 1990, as well as judgment dated

        03.12.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2006, by the

        learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha - Palanpur,

        are upheld. However, the order of quantum of sentence is

        modified by imposing a sentence of fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five

        Thousand) each upon both the accused in lieu of simple

        imprisonment of one year, which shall be deposited before the

        learned trial Court within four weeks from today.


6)      It is further directed that the fine, if any, deposited by the

        accused before the learned Trial Court is liable to be adjusted

        and deducted out of the fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) as

        mentioned hereinabove.




                                  Page 4 of 5
      R/CR.RA/21/2011                                                              JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026




7)         Previous surety bonds of the applicants – accused stand

           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 08/04/2026 18:16:14




                                                        Page 5 of 5