GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 5 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 5:
1. Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. V.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner namely, Raj Narayan Sah, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2008, upholding the judgment and order dated 10.07.2008 passed by the learned SDJM, Kaliabor, Nagaon in CR Case No. 93/01. By the said judgment, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter PFA) and sentence imposed was six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month.
3. The trial court record is available here.
4. The learned Senior counsel submits that he has a limited prayer inasmuch as, he seeks benefit of Section 51 of the new law governing the field, namely Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (herein after FSS Act) and the substance of the said provision is stated to be pari materia to Section 7 of the PFA. In this regard, a judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court has been placed which was rendered on 16.12.2024 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 412/2011. The learned Senior counsel has drawn my attention to para 10 onwards. This court after referring to two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court namely, Trilok Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 2020 10 SCC 763 and T. Barai vs. Henry Ah Hoe, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 177, held that beneficial interpretation of the new Act can be applied to cases presently pending also. The said principle was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned Trilok Chand (supra) and T. Barai (supra). Accordingly, in the said decision, this Court directed the sentence of simple imprisonment for 6(six) months to be modified to fine already directed to paid.
5. Section 51 of FSS Act may be reproduced herein below-
Section 51 of the Act, 2006 prescribes that any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is substandard, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to five lakh rupees.
In the case in hand, the complaint and the conviction is also relatable to an allegation which says that the material/food seized from the possession of the accused petitioners were adulterated.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=LfKgAEL6K8Sqqfv6TysK%2BPSLyB7BPWEeAUKTJGl0FaoxBeWscPIlfl60qkd5j%2Fzp&caseno=Crl.Rev.P./388/2012&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010219622012&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
