INTHECOURTOFMS[CASE NUMBER]POONAMA[CASE NUMBER]BAMBA:DISTRICT& SESSIONSJUDGE:NEWDELHI [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] Appellant Versus Sh[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY] S/oSh[CASE NUMBER]RamKalan M[ENTITY] WZ20,ChunnamalPark EastPunjabiBagh NewDelhi110026[CASE NUMBER] R/oHouseNo[CASE NUMBER]7,GaliNo[CASE NUMBER]10 MadanPark,EastPunjabiBagh Delhi110026[CASE NUMBER] Respondent
APPEALUNDERSECTIONS377CODEOF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE ORDERDATED14[CASE NUMBER]02[CASE NUMBER]2013OFLD[CASE NUMBER]ACMM II,NEWDELHI[CASE NUMBER]
DateofInstitutionofAppeal:06[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2013 Argumentsconcludedon :06[CASE NUMBER]03[CASE NUMBER]2018 Judgmentannouncedon: 06[CASE NUMBER]03[CASE NUMBER]2018 JUDGMENT 1[CASE NUMBER]0 [ENTITY],theappellanthaschallengedtheorder
on sentence dated 14[CASE NUMBER]02[CASE NUMBER]2013, whereby the Ld[CASE NUMBER] ACMMII, New FoodInspector/FoodSafetyOfficervs[ENTITY]PageNo[CASE NUMBER]1 of10 Delhisentencedtherespondentforanoffencepunishableunder [SECTION]/[SECTION] of the [ACT] It is pleaded that [SECTION] of the [ACT] prescribes minimum imprisonment of six months and fine[CASE NUMBER] Ld[CASE NUMBER] Trial Court could not have awarded imprisonment of [ACT] i[CASE NUMBER]e[CASE NUMBER] less than the minimumprescribed[CASE NUMBER]Insupport,Ld[CASE NUMBER]Addl[CASE NUMBER]PPplacedrelianceupon thejudgmentofHon'bleSupremeCourtinBalrajSharmaV[CASE NUMBER]State (UTChandigarh),2016(1)FAC16)[CASE NUMBER]
2[CASE NUMBER]0 On the other hand, Ld[CASE NUMBER] Counsel for the respondent sought dismissal of this appeal pleading that it lacks merit[CASE NUMBER] It is submittedthatasperPublicAnalyst'sreport,thesampleof"Orion ChocoPie" wasreportedtobemisbrandedforwantofdeclaration "GelatinAnimalOriginandusedvegetariansymbolalthoughbeef Gelatin used under ingredients in non vegetarian" and thus, the same was in violation of [SECTION] of the [ACT] AdulterationRules,1955("PFRules"inshort)[CASE NUMBER]Itwasnotacaseof adulteration[CASE NUMBER]Consideringthesame,theLd[CASE NUMBER]TrialCourthasrightly sentencedtheappellantwith[ACT]andfineofRs[CASE NUMBER]45,000/[CASE NUMBER]
3[CASE NUMBER]0 IhaveheardSh[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY],Ld[CASE NUMBER]Addl[CASE NUMBER]PPforthestate FoodInspector/FoodSafetyOfficervs[ENTITY]PageNo[CASE NUMBER]2 of10 andSh[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY]Ld[CASE NUMBER]Counselfortherespondentandhave carefullyperusedtherecord[CASE NUMBER]
4[CASE NUMBER]0 Brieflystating,thefactualbackgroundoftheappealis thatasampleof"OrionChocoPie"wasliftedfromthevendorcum Proprietor/respondent'spremisesatM[ENTITY],WZ 20,ChunnamalPark,EastPunjabiBagh,NewDelhi,bytheFood Inspectoron04[CASE NUMBER]10[CASE NUMBER]2005[CASE NUMBER]Onepartofsamplewassentforanalysis[CASE NUMBER] PublicAnalystvidehisreportdated11[CASE NUMBER]10[CASE NUMBER]2005reportedthesample tobemisbrandedbecauseitdidnotdeclare"GelatinAnimalOrigin and used vegetarian symbol although beef Gelatin used under ingredientsinnonvegetarian"andthattherewasviolationofrule 32(e)ofPFARules[CASE NUMBER]Acomplaintagainsttherespondenthereinwas filed alleging violation of [SECTION] [ACT][CASE NUMBER] The respondent/accused was charged with violation of provisions of Section2(ix)(e)(g)&(k)ofthePFAActandrules32(b)&(e),37and 42(ZZZ)PFRules,whichispunishableunderSection16(1)(a)r/w [ACT]
4[CASE NUMBER]1 On 14[CASE NUMBER]02[CASE NUMBER]2013, the respondent pleaded guilty to the offencesallegedagainsthimandprayedthatalenientviewmaybe takenagainsthim[CASE NUMBER]Inviewofthesame,theLd[CASE NUMBER]TrialCourtpassed theimpugnedorder,whichreadsasunder:
"14[CASE NUMBER]02[CASE NUMBER]2013 Present:ShriMasoodAhmad,Ld[CASE NUMBER]SPPforthecomplainant[CASE NUMBER]
FoodInspector/FoodSafetyOfficervs[ENTITY]PageNo[CASE NUMBER]3 of10 AccusedalongwithCounsel,[ENTITY][CASE NUMBER]
Todaycaseislistedforconsiderationonapplicationundersection311 Cr[CASE NUMBER]P[CASE NUMBER]C[CASE NUMBER]filedonbehalfoftheaccused[CASE NUMBER]
Atthisstage,Ld[CASE NUMBER]Counselfortheaccusedsubmitsthatsincethe offencecomplainedofagainsttheaccusedisofmisbrandingonlyandthereisno adulteration,theaccusedisreadyandwillingtopleadguilty[CASE NUMBER]
Statementoftheaccusedtothiseffecthasbeenrecordedseparately wherebyhehaspleadedguiltyfortheoffence(s)complainedofagainsthimand prayedforlenientviewtobetaken[CASE NUMBER]Ld[CASE NUMBER]Counselfortheaccusedsubmittedthat theaccusedis40yearsofage,havewife,twosmallschoolgoingchildrenofage about1314years[CASE NUMBER]Hefurthersubmittedthatatpresenttheaccusedhasno businessandissolebreadearnerofhisfamilyandtherefore,alenientviewmay betaken[CASE NUMBER]
OntheotherhandLd[CASE NUMBER]SPPhasarguedthattheoffencesunderthe PFAAct,1954aresocioeconomicoffencesandshouldbedealtwithseverelyand accusedbeawardedappropriatesentence[CASE NUMBER]
Keeping into consideration the submissions as summarized herein above, this court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice shall be reasonablyandsuitablymetiftheaccusedissentencedtoS[CASE NUMBER]I[CASE NUMBER]fortheperiodofone day i[CASE NUMBER]e[CASE NUMBER] till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs[CASE NUMBER]45,000/(Rs[CASE NUMBER]Forty Five Thousandonly)[CASE NUMBER]Indefaultofpaymentoffine,onemonthS[CASE NUMBER]I[CASE NUMBER]totheaccused[CASE NUMBER]Fine paid[CASE NUMBER]Endorsementonsecuritydocumentofthesurety,ifany,becancelledasper rules[CASE NUMBER]
FilebeconsignedtoRecordsafterduecompliance[CASE NUMBER]
([ENTITY]) ACMMII/PHC/ND/14[CASE NUMBER]02[CASE NUMBER]2013"
4[CASE NUMBER]2 Theappellanthaspleadedthattheminimumsentence formisbrandingasprescribedunderSection16(1)(a)PFAAct,is imprisonmentforatermofnotlessthansixmonths;andtherefore, theLd[CASE NUMBER]MMcouldnothaveawardedthesentenceof[ACT]i[CASE NUMBER]e[CASE NUMBER]less thantheminimumprescribedperiodofsixmonths[CASE NUMBER]Ld[CASE NUMBER]counselfor therespondentontheotherhand,arguedthatitwasonlyacaseof misbrandingandnotadulteration[CASE NUMBER]ThePFAActnowstandsrepealed andhasbeenreplacedbytheFoodSafety&StandardsAct,2006 ("[ACT]"inshort)[CASE NUMBER]Under[ACT],misbrandingispunishable onlywithfineandpunishmentofimprisonmenthasbeendoneaway FoodInspector/FoodSafetyOfficervs[ENTITY]PageNo[CASE NUMBER]4 of10 with[CASE NUMBER] Inviewofthesefacts,thereisnoinfirmityinthesentence awardedbytheLd[CASE NUMBER]TrialCourt[CASE NUMBER] Insupport,Ld[CASE NUMBER]Counselplaced relianceuponthejudgmentofHon'bleSupremeCourtOfIndiain NemiChandV[CASE NUMBER]StateofRajasthan2016(1)FAC561[CASE NUMBER]
4[CASE NUMBER]3 No doubt, minimum sentence for the offences under Section2(ix)(e)(g)&(k)ofthePFAActandrules32(b)&(e),37 and42(ZZZ)PFRules,withwhichtherespondentwascharged,as prescribedunderSection16(1)(a)PFAAct,issixmonths[CASE NUMBER] Thus, the Ld[CASE NUMBER] Trial Court awarded less than the minimum prescribed sentence[CASE NUMBER]
4[CASE NUMBER]4 Whatistobeseenis,whethertheLd[CASE NUMBER]ACMMcouldhave awardedapunishmentlessthantheprescribedminimum[CASE NUMBER] It isa matterofrecordthatthatPFAActstandsrepealedvideNotification [CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER], dated 4th August, 2011 w[CASE NUMBER]e[CASE NUMBER]f[CASE NUMBER] 05[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2011andnow[ACT]hascomeintobeing[CASE NUMBER]UnderSection52 [ACT],misbrandingisnowpunishableonlywithpenaltywhich mayextendtoRs[CASE NUMBER]ThreeLacs[CASE NUMBER]Thepunishmentofimprisonmenthas beendoneawaywith[CASE NUMBER]Itwouldbepertinenttomentionherethatthe similarissueasinvolvedintheinstantcase,thatis,ofawardingof sentencelessthantheminimumprescribedundertheoldAct([ACT])cameupforconsiderationbeforetheHon'bleSupremeCourtin NemiChandvsStateofRajasthan,[CASE NUMBER] FoodInspector/FoodSafetyOfficervs[ENTITY]PageNo[CASE NUMBER]5 of10 2016&215of2016,decidedvidejudgmentdated10[CASE NUMBER]03[CASE NUMBER]2016[CASE NUMBER]In thatcase,theappellantwastriedandconvictedforoffenceunder Section7/16ofthePFAActbythetrialcourtandwasinteralia, sentencedtoundergosixmonths'RigorousImprisonmentaswellas fineofRs[CASE NUMBER]1,000/[CASE NUMBER]Thesamewaschallengedbywayofappealbefore thesessionscourtandonnotsucceeding,theappellantfiledrevision petitionbeforetheHon'bleHighCourtwhichwasalsodismissed[CASE NUMBER] TheappellantthenpreferredanappealbeforetheHon'bleSupreme Court[CASE NUMBER]Hon'bleSupremeCourtvideitsorderdated10[CASE NUMBER]03[CASE NUMBER]2016,had modified/reducedthesentenceawardedtotheappellantthereinto fineofRs[CASE NUMBER]50,000/ fortheoffenceunderSection7/16ofthe[ACT][CASE NUMBER]
4[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]1 Hon'bleSupremeCourtinabovecase,observedasunder:
" Itisnotindisputethatthechargeagainsttheappellantwasonlyofsub standardizationofgoods[CASE NUMBER]Mr[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY]learnedseniorcounselappearing fortheappellant,submitsthatthoughtheappellanthassomeprimafaciecaseevenon merits,hewouldbegivingupthepleaonmeritsandhisonlysubmissionisabout thesentencewhichhasbeenimposedbythecourtsbelow[CASE NUMBER]Hehas,inthisbehalf, [ACT]onlya fineisleviable[CASE NUMBER]HehasdrawnourattentiontothejudgmentofthisCourtin'T[CASE NUMBER]Barai v[CASE NUMBER]HenryAhHoeandAnother'[1983(1)SCC177]whereinthisCourtheldthat sincetheamendmentwasbeneficialtotheaccusedpersons,itcanbeapplied evenwithrespecttoearliercasesaswellwhicharependingintheCourt[CASE NUMBER]Inthe saidjudgment,theCourtheldasunder:
"22[CASE NUMBER]ItisonlyretroactivecriminallegislationthatisprohibitedunderArticle 20(1)[CASE NUMBER]TheprohibitioncontainedinArticle20(1)isthatnopersonshallbe convictedofanyoffenceexceptforviolationofalawinforceatthetimeofthe commissionoftheactchargedasanoffenceprohibitsnorshallhebesubjected toapenaltygreaterthanthatwhichmighthavebeeninflictedunderthelawin forceatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffence[CASE NUMBER]Itisquiteclearthatinsofar astheCentralAmendmentActcreatesnewoffencesorenhancespunishment foraparticulartypeofoffencenopersoncanbeconvictedbysuchexpostfacto law nor can the enhanced punishment prescribed by the amendment be FoodInspector/FoodSafetyOfficervs[ENTITY]PageNo[CASE NUMBER]6 of10 applicable[CASE NUMBER] But in so far as the [ACT] reduces the punishmentforanoffencepunishableunderSection16(1)(a)oftheAct, thereisnoreasonwhytheaccusedshouldnothavethebenefitofsuch reducedpunishment[CASE NUMBER]Theruleofbeneficialconstructionrequiresthateven expostfactolawofsuchatypeshouldbeappliedtomitigatetherigourof thelaw[CASE NUMBER]Theprincipleisbasedbothonsoundreasonandcommonsense[CASE NUMBER]This findssupportinthefollowingpassagefromCraiesonStatuteLaw,7th Edn[CASE NUMBER],atpp[CASE NUMBER]38889:
Aretrospectivestatuteisdifferentfromanexpostfactostatute[CASE NUMBER]"Every expostfactolaw "[ENTITY],J[CASE NUMBER],intheAmericancaseofCalderv[CASE NUMBER]Bull "mustnecessarilyberetrospective,buteveryretrospectivelawisnotanex postfactolaw[CASE NUMBER]Everylawthattakesawayorimpairsrightsvestedagreeably to existing laws is retrospective, and is generally unjust and may be oppressive;itisagoodgeneralrulethatalawshouldhavenoretrospect,but incasesinwhichthelawsmayjustlyandforthebenefitofthecommunity andalsoofindividualsrelatetoatimeantecedenttotheircommencement: asstatutesofoblivionorofpardon[CASE NUMBER]Theyarecertainlyretrospective,and literally both concerning and after the facts committed[CASE NUMBER] But I do not consider any law ex post facto within the prohibition that mollifies the rigourofthecriminallaw,butonlythosethatcreateoraggravatethecrime, orincreasethepunishmentorchangetherulesofevidenceforthepurpose ofconviction Thereisagreatandapparentdifferencebetweenmakingan unlawful act lawful and the making an innocent action criminal and punishingitasacrime[CASE NUMBER]"
Fromthefactsofthepresentcase, wehavenodoubtinmindthattheaforesaid judgmentsquarelyappliesthereon[CASE NUMBER]Thisappealis,therefore,partlyallowedand thesentenceimposed upontheappellantismodifiedbyimposingfineofRs[CASE NUMBER] 50,000/whichshallbedepositedwithintwomonthswiththetrialcourt "
4[CASE NUMBER]5 Thus,theHon'bleSupremeCourtmodifiedtheminimum sentence of (rigorous) imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs[CASE NUMBER]10,000/ awarded by the Ld[CASE NUMBER] Trial Court to only fine of Rs[CASE NUMBER]50,000/[CASE NUMBER]
4[CASE NUMBER]6 Itwouldalsobepertinenttomentionherethatfollowing theabovedictumoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtin NemiChand's case, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in its recent judgment dated 22[CASE NUMBER]09[CASE NUMBER]2017 in [PRECEDENT], FoodInspector/FoodSafetyOfficervs[ENTITY]PageNo[CASE NUMBER]7 of10 CriminalRevisionApplication(AgainstConvictionFoodAdulteration Act) No[CASE NUMBER]662 of 2013, where the accused was guilty of only sub standardizationofgoods,modifiedthesentencefromoneyearsimple imprisonmentandfineofRs[CASE NUMBER]2,000/toonlyfineofRs[CASE NUMBER]40,000/[CASE NUMBER]
4[CASE NUMBER]7 Hon'bleHighCourtOfDelhiin StateVAmarSingh 2016Cr[CASE NUMBER]LJ583,whichinvolvedmisbrandingupheldthepunishment of [ACT], i[CASE NUMBER]e[CASE NUMBER] less than the minimum prescribed under [ACT], consideringinteraliathatthesaidoffenceisnowpunishablewithfine onlyunderthenewActi[CASE NUMBER]e[CASE NUMBER]FSSA[CASE NUMBER]
4[CASE NUMBER]8 Apassingreferencemayalsobemade toletterdated 03[CASE NUMBER]10[CASE NUMBER]2017ofFoodSafetyandStandardsAuthorityofIndia[CASE NUMBER]Videsaid letter,thesaidAuthority,inthelightofjudgmentofHon'bleSupreme Court in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), issued an advisory to the CommissionersofFoodSafety/OfficersinchargeofFoodSafetyto dispose of the long pending court cases filed under old [ACT] mainlyconcerningsubstandardandmisbrandingbyimposingfine only[CASE NUMBER]
4[CASE NUMBER]9 [ENTITY] (supra) as relied upon by Ld[CASE NUMBER] Addl[CASE NUMBER] PP[CASE NUMBER] The facts in that case were very different[CASE NUMBER]Saidcaseinvolvedadulteration[CASE NUMBER]Further,inthatcase,afresh factualpleawasraisedbytheappellantatappellatestage[CASE NUMBER] Inthose FoodInspector/FoodSafetyOfficervs[ENTITY]PageNo[CASE NUMBER]8 of10 circumstances,theHon'bleCourtobservedthatitcannotinterferewith theminimumsentenceawardedbytheLd[CASE NUMBER]TrialCourt[CASE NUMBER]TheHon'ble Court was not dealing with the issue whether the sentence can be reducedtolessthanminimum, aswasdirectlydealt within [PRECEDENT]'s case(supra)[CASE NUMBER]Inviewofthesame,saidjudgmentisofno assistancetotheappellant[CASE NUMBER]
5[CASE NUMBER]0 Inviewofthe above facts and circumstances and the case law as discussed above, the imprisonment of [ACT] is not interfered with[CASE NUMBER] However, it is notedthat the sample didnot bear batch number; and statement / symbol on the label was false and misleading[CASE NUMBER]Labelborevegetariansymbolwhereasonthelabelunder theingredientsatoneplace,itmentionedthattheproductcontained "Gelatin" and at other place, it declared "beef Gelatin" without specifyingthattheGelatinwasofanimalorigin,whichisaserious matter[CASE NUMBER] Consideringthesefactsandkeepinginmindthespiritof the [ACT], the penalty imposed upon the respondent is enhancedtoRs[CASE NUMBER]70,000/(Rs[CASE NUMBER]SeventyThousandonly)whichshall bedepositedwiththeLd[CASE NUMBER]TrialCourtwithinaperiodoftwoweeks fromtoday[CASE NUMBER]
6[CASE NUMBER]0 Theappealisaccordinglydisposedof[CASE NUMBER]
FoodInspector/FoodSafetyOfficervs[ENTITY]PageNo[CASE NUMBER]9 of10 7[CASE NUMBER]0 Trialcourtrecordbesentbackalongwithcopyofthis judgment[CASE NUMBER]
8[CASE NUMBER]0 FilebeconsignedtoRecordRoom[CASE NUMBER]
Announcedintheopencourt(POONAMA[CASE NUMBER]BAMBA) onthis06thDayofMarch,2018[CASE NUMBER]District&SessionsJudge NewDelhi FoodInspector/FoodSafetyOfficervs[ENTITY]PageNo[CASE NUMBER]10 of10