Madhya Pradesh High Court
Siyaram Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8381
1 MSA-5-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 9 th OF MARCH, 2026
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No. 5 of 2025
SIYARAM SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Bahirani - Advocate for appellant.
Mr. Rajendra Jain - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
JUDGMENT
This Miscellaneous Second Appeal under Section 71(6) of the Food Safety and Standards Act (in short "FSSA") has been filed against the order dated 30/01/2025 passed by Food Safety Appellate Tribunal / 3 rd District Judge, District Morena in MCA No. 117/2022 as well as order dated 09/05/2012 passed by Adjudicating Officer / Additional District Magistrate, District Morena in Case No. 3/2012/Food Safety.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that on 01/09/2011 at about 12:30 p.m., Food Safety Officer, Morena, inspected vehicle No. MP-06-GA-0446 on information received by her, and she found that 70 to 80 liters of milk were stored in two containers. Appellant disclosed himself to be the owner of milk and also produced the driving license. However, he was not in a position to produce the food license/registration. He also did not give any specific reply to the effect as to where the milk was Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 11-03-2026 06:54:52 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8381 2 MSA-5-2025 being taken for delivery. Since Food Safety Officer had a suspicion, therefore, she collected the samples of milk, and sent the same to Food Analyst for testing. The samples were found to be substandard. A copy of the report of Food Analyst was sent to the appellant but appellant did not apply for retesting by the Referral Laboratory, and accordingly, complaint was filed.
3. The Adjudicating Officer, after recording the evidence of parties, came to a conclusion that appellant has violated the provisions of Sections 51 and 58 of FSSA, and accordingly, imposed a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- for violation of Section 51 of FSSA and Rs. 2,00,000/- for violation of Section 58 of FSSA.
4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by Adjudicating Officer, appellant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Tribunal has partially allowed the appeal, interfering with the quantum of penalty, and has reduced the penalty from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- for violation of Section 51 of FSSA and from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- for violation of Section 58 of FSSA.
5. Challenging the orders passed by Appellate Tribunal as well as Adjudicating Officer, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that copy of the report of Food Analyst was not sent to appellant, and therefore, he was denied his valuable right of getting the sample retested from the Referral Laboratory.
6. Accordingly, counsel for appellant was directed to point out from the record of Adjudicating Officer to show that objection with regard to non-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 11-03-2026 06:54:52 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8381 3 MSA-5-2025 supply of report of Food Analyst dated 15/09/2011 was raised by appellant. It is fairly conceded by counsel for appellant that no such objection was raised by appellant before the Adjudicating Officer.
7. Considered the submissions made by counsel for appellant.
8. In the complaint, which was filed by the Food Safety Officer, it was mentioned that the prescribed authority, by its letter dated 27/09/2011, had sent a copy of the report of Food Analyst dated 15/09/2011 and had informed the appellant that sample was found to be substandard, and it was mentioned that the information was given to appellant but appellant did not file any appeal under Section 46 of FSSA.
9. As already pointed out, aforesaid specific averment made in the complaint was never disputed by appellant in his reply, which was filed before the Adjudicating Officer. Kumari Rekha, who was working as a Food Safety Officer, was examined before the Adjudicating Officer, and she had specifically stated in her examination-in-chief that appellant was made aware of the report of Food Analyst, and appellant didn't file any appeal ( नमुने क जाँ च रपोट से व े ता को अवगत कराया गया। व े ता ारा दोबारा जाँ च हे तु कायालय म कोई अपील नह ं क गयी।). This witness was cross-examined by appellant, but not a single question was put to her with regard to non-supply of copy of the report of Food Analyst. Even appellant had entered into the witness box, and he did not utter a single word with regard to non-receipt of copy of the report of Food Analyst. In his evidence, he had admitted that he was carrying milk on the day when the samples were collected.
10. Under these circumstances, when the witness was present and she had made a specific statement that copy of the report of Food Analyst was Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 11-03-2026 06:54:52 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8381 4 MSA-5-2025 supplied to appellant, and when appellant deliberately did not cross-examine her on that issue and also in his own evidence, appellant did not allege that copy of the report of Food Analyst was not received, and even in a reply to the show cause notice, appellant did not raise a dispute that copy of the report of Food Analyst was not supplied to him, this Court is of considered opinion that now the appellant cannot be granted liberty to raise said objection.
11. At this stage, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that appellant is a petty trader, and therefore, penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- under Sections 51 and 58 of FSSA, respectively, is on a higher side, and therefore, it should be reduced.
12. Considered the submissions made by counsel for appellant.
13. Milk is consumed by infants, old persons, patients, and even healthy persons, therefore, it is an essential part of the meal of human beings, and any sort of adulteration in the milk has to be viewed seriously and cannot be ignored by taking a sympathetic view in favor of the wrongdoer. The Appellate Tribunal has already shown an undue sympathy to appellant by reducing the penalty from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- and from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- for violation of Sections 51 and 58 of FSSA. No further sympathetic view is required.
14. No other argument is advanced by counel for appellant.
15. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 30/01/2025 passed by Food Safety Appellate Tribunal / 3rd District Judge, District Morena in MCA No. 117/2022, as well as order dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 11-03-2026 06:54:52 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8381 5 MSA-5-2025 09/05/2012 passed by Adjudicating Officer / Additional District Magistrate, District Morena in Case No. 3/2012/Food Safety, are hereby affirmed.
16. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE AKS Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 11-03-2026 06:54:52 PM