JASHUJI KESHAJI CHAVDAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.RA/405/2010                               JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 405 of 2010

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
         Approved for Reporting         Yes      No

==========================================================
                      JASHUJI KESHAJI CHAVDA
                                 Versus
                     STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. AYUSH S JAIN(16666) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                Date : 06/04/2026

                                  JUDGMENT

1)       By way of present revision application under Sections 397 read with
         401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has
         prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated
         26.02.2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court
         No.6, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.14/1993, wherein the
         applicant has been convicted for the o?ence under Sections 16(1)a(i)
         and 7 of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to
         undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and @ne of Rs.500/- , as
         well as the order dated 15.07.2010 passed by learned City Sessions
         Judge, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Appeal No.31/2007 con@rming the
         order of conviction.




                                    Page 1 of 4
     R/CR.RA/405/2010                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




2)       Heard Mr.Ayush S. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms.
         Shruti Pathak, learned APP for the respondent State.

3)       Brief facts of the case are that, on 24.06.1992 at 9:15 a.m, respondent
         No.2 carried out a raid at the house of the applicant, who was selling
         milk. The complainant purchased 750 ml. Of milk by paying Rs.4.50 for
         the purpose of sample in presence of panchas. Thereafter, the
         complainant took the milk sample in three di?erent bottles, packed
         and sealed it and added 20 drops of formalin. The public analyst gave
         report that as per the standard prescribed under the Rules, the SNF
         of milk should be at least 8.5% in one minute, whereas the sample
         should 7.6 % of SNF and therefore, the sample of milk is adulterated.

4)       Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the
         complainant has not followed the mandatory requirements in taking,
         preserving, packing, sealing and sending the samples for public
         analysis; that the complainant has not taken due care and precaution
         by stirring the milk before taking sample. The Public analyst has not
         been examined by the prosecution to prove the case against the
         applicant even though the entire case is based on the report of public
         analyst. No panchnama is carried out by the complainant at the time
         of taking the sample. The complainant has not stated anywhere in the
         complaint that he had taken the sample after stirring the milk. All
         these facts suggest that there are number of in@rmities and lapses in
         following the mandatory procedure stipulated under the Act.
         Therefore, both the learned Courts have committed error in
         convicting the applicant. He has further submitted that no any
         o?ence was made out under Section 7 and 16 of the Act and if
         alleged case is falling under aduleterated, at no point of time the
         prosecution is able to prove breach of Sections 7 and 16(1)A(i) of the
         Act. In the sample, the milk fat is more than the requirement (limit of



                                    Page 2 of 4
R/CR.RA/405/2010                                JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




    3.5%) which shows that nothing is added or adulterated, which was
    also natural and this sample cannot be considered as adulterated and
    the complainant could not have misused his power. Further, the milk
    SNF is found 7.61 as against the requiremetn of 8.5, which cannot be
    said to be more than 20%. the said di?erence is natural and possible
    if the percentage of fat is more. Therefore, the applicant ought to
    have been acquitted. Both the Courts have failed to appreciate the
    evidence on record. Therefore, he has prayed to allow the revision
    application.

5) Learned APP for the respondent State has supported the case and
    the judgment of both the Courts and submitted that no interference
    of this Court is required.

6) Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and going
    through the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the
    accused is convicted for adulteration of the milk and the case was
    registered under The 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 @ne 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 @ne is required to be imposed. Therefore, this
    Court is of the view that a sentence of @ne of Rs.5,000/- (Five
    Thousand) will serve the ends of justice in place of simple
    imprisonment of three months.

7) Accordingly, present revision application is partly allowed. The
    judgment dated 26.02.2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan
    Magistrate, Court No.6, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.14/1993 as


                                 Page 3 of 4
    R/CR.RA/405/2010                                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




         well as the order dated 15.07.2010 passed by learned City Sessions
         Judge, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Appeal No.31/2007 con@rming the
         order of conviction are hereby upheld. However, the order of
         quantum of sentence is modi@ed by imposing a sentence of @ne of
         Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) upon the accused in lieu of simple
         imprisonment of three months, which shall be deposited before the
         learned trial Court within four weeks from today.                                   It is further
         directed that the @ne, if any, deposited by the accused before the
         learned Trial Court is liable to be adjusted and deducted out of the
         @ne of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) as mentioned hereinabove.
         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)



SUCHIT




 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/04/2026 14:17:00


                                                 Page 4 of 4