STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GULAM MOHMMED TARMOHMMED MEMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned APP Mr. K. L. Pandya for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Kartik I. Soni for the respondent.

(2.) The appellant State has filed this appeal praying to enhance the sentence awarded to the respondent by the JMFC of Sagbara, District: Narmada in Criminal Case No. 543 of 2010 whereby respondent is convicted under Rule 32(C)(f)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and under Sections 2(9)(k) as well as 7(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. By such impugned judgment dated 27.02.2012, for above conviction the trial Court has awarded sentence in the form of simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs.100/- with condition that in default of payment of fine, respondent has to undergo simple imprisonment for further 15 days.

(3.) The case of the complainant, being Senior Food Inspector before the trial Court was to the effect that respondent herein is running a shop in the name and style of Saurashtra Cold-drinks and dealing with cold beverages like lemon, orange, rimzim, masal soda, kalakhatta, mango etc. and on the date of raid i.e. on 04.03.2004 the complainant has purchased 6 bottles of orange sweetened carbonated water after making payment and taken specimen from such bottles and on analysis, it was found that it was mis-branded and thereby complaint was lodged against respondent and after trial, he was convicted as aforesaid. It is material to note that even while collecting the samples, complainant has to disclose that he has purchased the material of Rimzim brand and, therefore, it becomes clear that respondent has not manufactured all such product, which is sold in a packed bottle and ready to serve. It is also clear that even public analyst has after examination, simply reported that it is mis branded but there is no result or report regarding any contents or adulteration or either presence of any material, which may be harmful to the human being or there is no proof regarding absence of any required ingredients or presence of any unwanted ingredients. Thereby as per the report by the Public Analyst when the product is as per the standard laid down in the Act. Practically, for mis-branding of the product, there must be a complaint by the original manufacturer of particular brand. Whereas so far as non-compliance of Section 2(9) (k) of the Act is concerned, it is practically regarding improper label and not for adulteration and to that extent through it is an offence but it is not that kind of serious offence, for which conviction, which is imposed by the trial Court, may be modified only because appeal is preferred.