Sentence for mis-branded food products modified to fine-only penalty in alignment with current food safety legislation.

The Food Inspector purchased three sealed packets of "Lime Achar" from the applicant’s agency.

Following a criminal case, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandevi, convicted the applicant on December 2, 2004, under Section 7(2) for violation of Section 16(1)(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act.

The trial court sentenced the applicant to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000.

This order was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, on May 31, 2011.

The applicant approached the High Court in revision, arguing that the sample was declared "mis-branded" only because the label lacked batch, lot, or code numbers, and was not actually adulterated.

The court primarily considered Section 7(2) and Section 16(1)(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, regarding the sale of mis-branded food.

It further applied the principles of the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006, specifically Sections 51 and 52, which prescribe penalties or fines rather than imprisonment for sub-standard or mis-branded goods.

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 for sub-standard articles, the ends of justice are served by imposing a fine in lieu of imprisonment.

The court noted that the accused was convicted for selling "mis-branded" goods rather than adulterated ones, as the only deficiency was the absence of batch and lot numbers on the label.

While the conviction was originally handed down under the PFA Act, the court took judicial notice of the legislative shift introduced by the FSSA 2006, which mandates only penalties for mis-branding.

Applying the ratio from Nemi Chand and Triloki Chand, the court reasoned that when a food article is merely sub-standard or mis-branded, a fine is the appropriate punishment.

The court found that maintaining the conviction while substituting the six-month imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 would satisfy the legal requirements and the interests of justice given the nature of the violation.

The court substituted the six-month simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000.

Additionally, the court directed that the fine of Rs. 25,000 previously deposited by the applicant on April 15, 2002, be adjusted toward the modified sentence.

The applicant’s surety bonds were discharged and interim relief was vacated.