PURUSHOTTAMBHAI MULAJIBHAI HADIYAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant-original accused is aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 31st January 2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadhwan City in Criminal Case No.48 of 2000 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, was pleased to convict the petitioner-accused for breach of Rule 32(e) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and under section 7(2) and 7(5) under section 16 of the Act. The learned JMFC was pleased to award 3 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.250/-, in default to undergo 15 days of simple imprisonment. The learned JMFC was also pleased to pass a similar order for violation of Rule 32(f).

(2.) The petitioner-accused being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement and order preferred criminal Appeal No.1 of 2003, which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Surendranagar. The same was dismissed by judgement and order dated 3rd August 2006. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to confirm the judgement and order passed by the learned JMFC and was pleased cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner-accused and ordered him to be taken into custody. At that time an application was moved for suspending the sentence so as to enable the petitioner-accused to approach this Court by way of a revision application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to suspend the sentence till 31st August 2006. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that though the revision application was filed in time, i.e. prior to expiry of the period for which the sentence was suspended, but when the matter was moved for admission hearing before this Court, this Court (Coram: D.N. Patel, J.) was pleased to issue notice and call for the Record & Proceedings by order dated 30.08.2006. The relevant part of the order reads as under:

(3.) The submission of the learned advocate is not acceptable because term 'adulterated' is defined in clause (i-a) of section 2 of the Act, whereas what is 'misbranded' is defined in clause (ix) of section 2 of the Act. There are numerous ways in which an article can be 'misbranded'. In the present case as is mentioned, the article is found to be not complying with Rules 32(e) and 32(f) of the Rules.