Imprisonment for sub-standard food conviction replaced by fine per Food Safety and Standard Act provisions.

The applicant (original accused) was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadiya, in 2010 for offences under Sections 7(i)(v) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA).

The conviction stemmed from a 2006 case involving a sample of Curd (Dahi) found to be sub-standard.

The applicant was sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.

This judgment was upheld by the 2nd (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar, in 2015.

The applicant challenged the conviction in the present revision application, alleging procedural lapses in sample collection under Rule 14 of the PFA, discrepancies in laboratory reports, and the absence of independent witnesses.

During the pendency of the revision, the applicant requested a modification of the sentence, citing subsequent amendments in food safety laws.

Sections 7(i)(v) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which mandated imprisonment for food adulteration.

Sections 51 and 52 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 (FSSA), which contemplate only monetary penalties (fines) for food items found to be "sub-standard".

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedents of Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2018) 17 SCC 448 and Triloki Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 763, which established that in cases of sub-standard food articles, a fine is an appropriate substitute for imprisonment.

The court observed that the core charge against the applicant was the "sub-standardization" of the goods rather than harmful adulteration.

While the applicant argued against the merits of the conviction based on procedural lapses (Rule 14) and the lack of independent witnesses, the court focused on the legislative shift from the PFA to the FSSA.

Applying the doctrine established in Nemi Chand and Triloki Chand, the court reasoned that since the modern legal framework (FSSA 2006) treats sub-standard food as an offense punishable primarily by fine, the ends of justice would be met by modifying the applicant's sentence.

The court found that although the conviction was legally sound under the old Act, the harshness of the imprisonment was no longer aligned with the current legislative intent regarding sub-standard products.

It upheld the conviction passed by the Trial Court and the Sessions Court but modified the quantum of sentence.

The order of six months of simple imprisonment was set aside and substituted with a fine of Rs. 5,000, to be deposited within four weeks.

The court further directed that any fine previously deposited be adjusted against this new amount and discharged the applicant's surety bond.