Madhya Pradesh High Court
Komal Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:23045
1 Criminal Revision No.5994 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 12th OF DECEMBER, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5994 of 2024
KOMAL SINGH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Upendra Yadav- Advocate for applicant.
Shri Naval Kishor Gupta - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision, under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2024 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.210/2022 thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.10.2022 passed by JMFC, Morena in RCT No.2800340/2011 by which applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and has been sentenced to undergo RI of six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default RI of one month.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/19/2024 5:44:50 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:23045 2 Criminal Revision No.5994 of 2024
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that on 29.08.2010 at about 01:30 pm, sample of milk was collected from Tanker No.MP06-GA-0526. The report of Public Analyst was obtained, according to which the sample was found to be adulterated. Applicant filed an application for retesting by Central Laboratory. The report of Central Laboratory Ex.D-1 was also received. It is found that sample of milk does not conform to the standards laid down under Item No.A.11.01.11 of Appendix B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, in that solid not fat is below the minimum prescribed limits and Test for Glucose is positive. The sample was, thus, found adulterated.
3. Challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by courts below, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that since milk was collected on 29.08.2010 and by that time, the Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006 had already come into existence, therefore, conviction of applicant for offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is bad. Even otherwise under Section 57 of Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006, the maximum prescribed sentence is fine of Rs.2,00,000/- or Rs.10,00,000/-. It is submitted that since adulterant was not found injurious to health, therefore, jail sentence awarded to applicant may be set aside and a fine of Rs.Two lacs may be imposed.
4. Heard learned counsel for applicant.
5. Admittedly, the sample was collected on 29.08.2010 whereas as per notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, dated 04.08.2011, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was repealed with effect from 05.08.2011.
6. Thus, it is clear that on the date when the sample was collected, applicant could have been convicted under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as well as Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/19/2024 5:44:50 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:23045 3 Criminal Revision No.5994 of 2024 under Food Safety and Standards Act (In short FSSA).
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Manik Hiru Jhangiani Vs. State of M.P. decided on 14-12-2023 passed in Cr.A. No. 3864 of 2023 has held as under :
17. In this case, on the day on which the alleged offence was committed, the offender could have been sentenced to imprisonment under Section 16 of the PFA and under the FSSA, he could have been directed to pay the penalty up to Rupees 3 lakhs. The punishment under PFA and the penalty under the FSSA cannot be imposed on the violator for the same misbranding because it will amount to double jeopardy, which is prohibited under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. Thus, when the penal action can be taken under both statutes, the question is which will prevail. An answer to the said question has been provided by Section 89 of the FSSA, which reads thus:
"89. Overriding effect of this Act over all other food related laws.
- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act."
18. The effect of Section 89 is that if there is an inconsistency between the provisions of the PFA and the FSSA, the provisions of the FSSA will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the PFA. When it comes to the consequences of misbranding, the same has been provided under both the enactments, and there is inconsistency in the enactments as regards the penal consequences of misbranding. As pointed out earlier, one provides for imposing only a penalty in terms of payment of money, and the other provides imprisonment for not less than six months. In view of the inconsistency, Section 89 of the FSSA will operate, and provisions of the FSSA will prevail over the provisions of the PFA to the extent to which the same are inconsistent. Thus, in a case where after coming into force of Section 52 of the FSSA, if an act of misbranding is committed by anyone, which is an offence punishable under Section 16 of PFA and which attracts penalty under Section 52 of the FSSA, Section 52 of the FSSA will override the provisions of PFA. Therefore, in such a situation, in Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/19/2024 5:44:50 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:23045 4 Criminal Revision No.5994 of 2024 view of the overriding effect given to the provisions of the FSSA, the violator who indulges in misbranding cannot be punished under the PFA and he will be liable to pay penalty under the FSSA in accordance with Section 52 thereof.
8. Thus, it is clear that the only inconsistency is with regard to the punishment which can be imposed. In the present case, the next question for consideration is that whether this Court should set aside the conviction and sentence with liberty to the prosecution to initiate fresh prosecution under FSSA, or by keeping the provision of Section 89 of Food Safety and Standard Act in mind, can upheld the conviction and should modify sentence as per the provisions of Section 57 of FSSA.
9. This Court has already considered the reports submitted by Public Analyst and Central Laboratory and both the authorities had found that Milk was adulterated. Adulterated product is punishable under Section 57 of FSSA. Even otherwise, counsel for applicant could not point out any perversity in the findings of facts recorded by the courts below. Furthermore, applicant never raised any question with regard to his prosecution under PFA either before Trial Court or before Appellate Court. Thus, it would not be proper to interfere with the judgment of conviction only on the ground that there is an inconsistency with regard to quantum of punishment under PFA and FSSA. The inconsistency can be taken care of by awarding sentence as provided under Section 57 of FSSA instead of PFA.
10. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the courts below for Adulterated Milk is hereby affirmed. However, the sentence is modified and in place of R.I. for six months, a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- is hereby imposed with default imprisonment of 2 months' R.I. With aforesaid modification, the Judgment and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/19/2024 5:44:50 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:23045 5 Criminal Revision No.5994 of 2024 Sentence dated 26-11-2024 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.210/2022 and Judgment and Sentence dated 20-10- 2022 passed by J.M.F.C., Morena (M.P.) in RCT No.2800340/2011 are hereby affirmed.
11. The applicant is in jail. He shall be immediately released after the fine amount is deposited, otherwise, he shall undergo the default imprisonment.
12. With aforesaid observations, the Criminal Revision is Allowed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge pd Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/19/2024 5:44:50 AM