Substandard food articles warrant only monetary penalties under the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006.

The applicant (Accused No. 2) was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, on 30.09.2005 for offences under Sections 7(i) and 16(1)A(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA).

The conviction related to a sample of mawa (concentrated milk) found to be sub-standard.

The trial court sentenced him to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000. This order was subsequently upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge on 17.07.2017.

The applicant moved the High Court in revision, contending, inter alia, lack of legal nexus between him and the licensee (his deceased father) and procedural lapses in sample collection.

1. Whether the sentence of imprisonment should be maintained in light of the subsequent enactment of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, for offences involving "sub-standard" food.

2. Whether a lenient view is warranted by substituting imprisonment with a fine based on judicial precedents.

The Court applied the principle of beneficial legislation following the replacement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006. Specifically, Sections 51 and 52 of the 2006 Act prescribe only a penalty or fine for "sub-standard" goods.

The Court relied on the 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 establish that where an article is found to be sub-standard (rather than "adulterated" or "unsafe"), a penalty in the form of a fine should be preferred over imprisonment.

The Court noted that both the lower courts had concurrently found the applicant guilty of selling sub-standard mawa.

While the applicant challenged the merits—citing the absence of a master-servant relationship and improper cleaning of sample bottles—the Court found it more appropriate to address the quantum of sentence.

Applying the ratio from Nemi Chand and Triloki Chand, the Court reasoned that since the modern statutory framework (FSSA 2006) mandates only fines for sub-standard categorization, the ends of justice would be met by modifying the sentence from rigorous imprisonment to an enhanced fine of ₹5,000.

The High Court partly allowed the revision application. It upheld the conviction passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Sessions Court but modified the sentence. The applicant’s surety bonds were discharged upon compliance.