1 2025:CGHC:43174-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1575 of 2025 Vikash Gupta S/o Late Umashanker Gupta, aged about 38 years Occupation M/s Vikash Dairy, Chakradharnagar Raigarh District - Raigarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Food Safety Officer, Food and Drug Department, Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J . 26.08.2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 76 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, ‘the Act of 2006’) is directed against the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) in Criminal Appeal No. 120/2024, whereby the appeal filed by the ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 appellant under Section 70 of the Act of 2006 being against the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by the Court of Additional District Magistrate and Judicial Officer, Raigarh (C.G.) in Case No. 15B/- 121/2018-19 (C.G. Government Vs. Vikas Gupta) has been dismissed. 2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 25.09.2017, Food Safety Officer, Food and Drug Administration, Raigarh, Ankit Gupta, inspected M/s Vikas Dairy located at Chakradhar Chowk, Raigarh in the presence and with the consent of the firm operator Vikas Gupta, and purchased 01 kg. Paneer worth Rs. 300/- and a receipt was obtained and it was divided into four parts and sealed in front of witnesses, the signature of the appellant was taken, a sealed packet was prepared by keeping it with a copy of sample form 6 and sent to the Food Analyst State Food Testing Laboratory, Raipur, the remaining sample was deposited in the office of the Designated Officer Food and Drugs and Cosmetics, Raigarh, the sample sent was found to be substandard, which was informed to the appellant and a complaint was filed in the trial Court against the appellant for punishment under Section 51 of the Act of 2006 in violation of Section 26 (2) (ii) of the Act of 2006, the trial Court summoned the appellant through notice, the appellant submitted a reply, statements of witnesses were recorded, after hearing the arguments of both the parties, the impugned order was passed on 31.07.2023, holding the appellant guilty of substandard food item loose Paneer and the appellant 3 was fined with Rs 50,000/- (fifty thousand rupees) under Section 51 of the Act of 2006. 3. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 31.07.2023, the appellant has preferred an appeal under Section 70 of the Act of 2006, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2024 and the said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority vide impugned order dated 03.06.2025. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellant Court have committed grave illegality in not appreciating the fact that the sampling procedure was not followed correctly, and there were discrepancies in the handling and testing of the sample. It was also contended that the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to contest the findings of the Food Analyst. He further argued that as the appellant is a petty retailer, as such, his case would fall under sub-Section (2) of Section 31 of the Act of 2006 and not under Section 51 of the Act 2006 and therefore, the fine imposed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court should be reduced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Bhattacharjee Mahasya & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Another [Criminal Appeal No. 1800 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 5272 of 2022] decided on 17.10.2022. 4 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned orders, arguing that the sampling and testing procedures were conducted in accordance with the law. The Food Safety Officer followed due process, and the appellant's guilt was established based on the evidence presented, therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 6. We have carefully examined the records and considered the submissions of both parties. The key issues that arise for determination are: (i) Whether the sampling procedure was conducted in accordance with the law. (ii) Whether the appellant was given a fair opportunity to defend himself. (iii) Whether the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Authority are sustainable in law. 7. On perusing the records, it is evident that 01 kg of Paneer was purchased from Vikas Gupta, the proprietor of appellant Institute Vikas Dairy, by Food Safety Officer Ankit Gupta on 25.09.2017 and Rs. 300/- was paid and in this regard Form 5A, Panchnama and label were prepared and the receipt for sale of Paneer was given by the appellant and action was taken to send the cheese sample for testing and the Food Safety Officer followed the prescribed procedure for sampling and testing. The appellant's signature was obtained on the sample packets, and the sample was sent to the Food Analyst for testing. The report of the Food 5 Analyst clearly indicates that the Paneer sample was substandard. The appellant's contention regarding discrepancies in the handling of the sample is not supported by any concrete evidence. The statements of the witnesses, including the Food Safety Officer, were recorded in the presence of the appellant, and he was given an opportunity to cross-examine them. 8. Section 26 of the Act 2006 deals with the responsibilities of the Food business operator, which reads as under :- 26. Responsibilities of the Food business operator.–(1) Every food business operator shall ensure that the articles of food satisfy the requirements of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder at all stages of production, processing, import, distribution and sale within the businesses under his control. (2) No food business operator shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture, store, sell or distribute any article of food– (i) which is unsafe; or (ii) which is misbranded or sub-standard or contains extraneous matter; or (iii) for which a licence is required, except in accordance with the conditions of the licence; or (iv) which is for the time being prohibited by the Food Authority or the Central Government or the State Government in the interest of public health; or (v) in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule or regulation made thereunder. 6 9. 6 9. Section 51 of the Act of 2006 deals with penalty for sub-standard food, which reads as under :- “51. Penalty for sub-standard food.–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 sub-standard, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to five lakh rupees. 10. In view of the above, the appellant's contention regarding that the appellant is a petty retailer, as such, his case would fall under sub-Section (2) of Section 31 of the Act of 2006 and not under Section 51 of the Act 2006 is not supported by any concrete evidence. The fine imposed by the Trial Court is in accordance with Section 51 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and does not appear to be excessive. The judgment relied by learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on the ground of facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. In view of the above analysis, we find no merit in this appeal. The impugned orders dated 31.07.2023 and 03.06.2025, are upheld. The appeal, being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. The appellant is directed to pay the fine of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of 60 days from today. Failure to comply with this direction may result in further legal consequences. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra