Welcome to PesPro

Featured

 


02  December 2016

Friday


This blog strives to enrich the knowledge of various stakeholders in food safety chain from Farm to Fork


Image result for thiruvalluvar

தினம் ஒரு குறள்

 128. குறிப்பறிவுறுத்தல்


 
குறள் 1273:
மணியில் திகழ்தரு நூல்போல் மடந்தை
அணியில் திகழ்வதொன் றுண்டு
மு.வ உரை:
( கோத்த) மணியினுள் விளங்கும் நூலைப் போல் என் காதலியின் அழகினுள் விளங்குவதான குறிப்பு ஒன்று இருக்கின்றது.
சாலமன் பாப்பையா உரை:
கோக்கப்பட்ட பளிங்கிற்குள் கிடந்து வெளியே தெரியும் நூலைப் போல இவளின் அழகிற்குள் கிடந்து வெளியே தெரியும் குறிப்பு ஒன்று உண்டு.
கலைஞர் உரை:
மணியாரத்திற்குள் மறைந்திருக்கும் நூலைப்போல இந்த மடந்தையின் அழகுக்குள்ளே என்னை மயக்கும் குறிப்பு ஒன்று உளது

To reach a larger audience, PESPRO has installed Google Translation Widget in the blog.
The Articles posted  in English can be read in any of 104 languages of your preferrence.
For this,  you have to select the language you want to read from Select Language  top down list  of Translate Gadget 
Only English posts will be translated to your preferred language.
Enjoy reading PESPRO posts in Your Native Languages .
Admin

PFA – Delhi District Court – Meethi Supari – Misbranded -M/s Kuber Grain & Spices Vs The State – Nov 24-2016

IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH PANDIT,

ASJ-01, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

CA No. 8560/16 1

Vikas Vaisnav S/o Sh. Satya Prakash Vaisnav M/s Kuber Grain and Spices Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 7, Sec-4, IIE SIDKUL Haridwar. 2 M/s Kuber Grain and Spices Pvt. Ltd. Plot no. 7, Sec-4, IIE SIDKUL Haridwar Through Sh. Vikas Vaisnav Being authorized representative ….Appellant

Vs.

The State (NCT of Delhi) …. Respondent

Date of receiving of Appeal : 17.05.2013 Date of arguments : 24.11.2016 Date of judgment : 24.11.2016

JUDGEMENT

1 By this judgment I will dispose of appeal u/sec.374 Cr.PC. filed on behalf of Vikas Vaisnav against the judgment dated 22.04.2013 and order on sentence dated 27.04.2013 passed by Sh. Balwant Rai Bansal, then Ld. ACMM-II, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.

2 The brief facts of the case as per record and from trial court record are that accused is running an establishment namely M/s Rahul Store, A-31/7E, Main Road, Maujpur, Delhi-110053. On 25.04.2008 at about 5.00 p.m. Food Inspector Sh. Ranjeet Singh visited the said place and purchased 750 grams of “Meethi Supari” (ready for sale) from accused. FI was accompanied with SDM/LHA Sh. A. K. Sharma. The said Meethi Supari was purchased for the purposes of analysis under PFA Act. The same sample was divided into three parts, packed as per Rules of PFA. Panchanama was prepared. One sample was sent for analysis to Public Analyst. As per the report of Analyst, sample did not confirm to the standard because “The sample is misbranded because declaration of statutory warning and artificial sweetener is not as per Rule-42 ZZZ (6) and 42 ZZZ (1).”

3 As the sample was failed, prosecution was launched by Food Inspector by filing complaint dated 25.11.2008 with the court. Accused was summoned. He has not exercised his right u/sec.13(2) PFA Act for getting the sample analyzed from CFL.

4 Charge was framed against accused u/sec.2(ix) (k) read with sec.7 of PFA Act, 1954 punishable u/sec.16(1A) of PFA Act and also for violation of provisions of Rule 42 ZZZ (6) and 42 ZZZ (1).

5 After trial, vide judgment dated 22.04.2013 accused/appellant Vikas Vaisnav was convicted for offence  u/sec.16(1A) of PFA Act and vide order on sentence dated 27.04.2013 was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine SI of 15 days.

Accused/appellant Kuber Grain and Spices Pvt. Ltd. was directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-.

6 In this appeal, the accused has assailed the judgment on the following grounds:-

(i) There was policy of the Govt. to issue warning for first violation and due to that reason this prosecution is not maintainable.

(ii) The alleged offence is only of technical nature as one word “is” is not mentioned but “may” was mentioned.

(iii) After coming into Food Safety & Standards Act, the punishment is to be granted under the said Act (argued orally).

7 No reply was filed by respondent/state and the matter was argued orally.

8 I have gone through the record, Trial Court record and have heard the submissions of Ld. counsel for appellant and Ld. SPP for State.

9 It is argued that there was policy of the Govt. to issue warning for first violation and due to that reason this prosecution is not maintainable. As far as these arguments are concerned, the same were also address before the Ld. Trial Court and dealt by it in para 11 and 12 of the judgment. I have gone through that part of the judgment and hold that that part of judgment does not require interference and the same is upheld by this court also. So, the arguments of Ld. counsel for appellants in this regarding is hereby rejected.

10 It is further argued that the alleged offence is only of technical nature as one word “is” is not mentioned but “may” was mentioned. As far as these arguments are concerned, I think these are not maintainable since when a specific provision is given and it is directed that a particular way of caution is to be written, the same should be strictly applied. Hence, this argument is not tenable and thus rejected.

So, in these circumstances, I do not find any ground for change/modification of Trial Court’s judgment, on merits. So, the finding of the trial court with respect to the conviction of accused u/sec.2(ix) (k) of PFA Act 1954 read with Sec.16(1a) of PFA Act and for violation of provisions of Rule 42 ZZZ (6) and 42 ZZZ (1), is upheld.

11 It is submitted by Ld. counsel for appellant that on the date of judgment/order on sentence, the PFA Act, 1954 was repealed. It is further stated that the court should have passed the order on sentence as per the quantum/punishment mentioned in Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter called FSSA). For this purpose, Ld. counsel for appellant had relied on Judgment i.e. Nemi Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan (Crl. Appeals No. 214 and 215 of 2016, vide order dated 10.03.2016, as corrected vide order dated 17.03.2016, as reported in 2016 (1) FAC 203) of Hon. Supreme Court and earlier judgment T Barai Vs. Henry, 1983 (1) SCC 177.

12 On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. SPP for State that the sentencing cannot be done in new Act since the definition of many offences are changed in the new Act including this particular offence of which accused is charged. Definition of major offences like “adulteration” and “misbranding” have been changed. Now FSSA have definition “substandard food”, “food containing extraneous matter”, “unsafe food” and “misbranded food”. Due to this reason, the ingredients have changed and thus there is no way in which the old offences could be related to new offences.

13 As far as the objection of Ld. SPP for State is concerned, in the present case, the offence was that the article/food i.e. Meethi Supari was found “misbranded” as there was not proper warning in terms of PFA Act i.e. instead of using word “is” word “may” was used. This was termed as “misbranding” in view of Sec.2(ix) of PFA Act and thus      consequently punishable u/sec.16(1a) of PFA Act. The charge/notice was framed with these facts.

14 Now in the FSSA, such thing is termed as “misbranded food” in terms of Sec.3(zf) of FSSA Act punishable u/sec.52 of FSSA.

So, if we go through both these provisions of law, a particular offence with a particular fact is mentioned with some other name but with same ingredients in the new FSSA Act.

15 Hence, it is held that it is the ingredients which constitute an offence, determines that whether it is the same offence but with new name or an altogether different offence. Here the offence i.e. Meethi Supari was found “misbranded” as there was not proper warning in terms of PFA Act i.e. instead of using word “is” word “may” was used which was punishable u/sec.16(1a) PFA Act is similar to the offence u/sec.52 of FSSA Act.

16 As far as the application of Nemi Chand judgment (supra) is concerned, the same is based on the old judgment i.e. T. Barai (supra) of Hon. Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the T. Barai judgment is as follows:-

(Para 25) – It is settled both on authority and principle that when a later statute again describes an offence created by an earlier statute and imposes a different punishment,    or varies the procedure, the earlier statute is repealed by implication. In Michell v. Brown [(1958) 120 ER 909, 912: 32 LTOS 146 : 7 WR 80] Lord Campbell put the matter thus:

“It is well settled rule of construction that, if a later statute again describes an offence created by a former statute and affixes a different punishment, varying the procedure, the earlier statute is repealed by the later statute; see also Smith v. Benabo [(1937) 1 All ER 523: (1937) 1 KB 518: 156 LT 194] .

In Regina v. Youle [(1861) 158 ER 311, 315-16: 4 LT 299: 9 WR 637] , Martin, B. said in the oft-quoted passage:

“If a statute deals with a particular class of offences, and a subsequent Act is passed which deals with precisely the same offences, and a different punishment is imposed by the later Act, I think that, in effect, the legislature has declared that the new Act shall be substituted for the earlier Act.”

The rule is however subject to the limitation contained in Article 20(1) against ex post facto law providing for a greater punishment and has also no application where the offence described in the later Act is not the same as in the earlier Act i.e. when the essential ingredients of the two offences are different.

Moreover this particular aspect is stated as a illustration in the same judgment in para 23 which is as follows:-

To illustrate, if Parliament were to reenact Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and provide that the punishment for an offence of murder shall be sentence for imprisonment for life instead of the present sentence of death or imprisonment for life, then it cannot be that the courts would still award a sentence of death even in pending cases.

So, in these circumstances, it can be safely said that while considering on the point of sentence, the quantum of sentence in new Act i.e. FSSA is to be considered.

17 Now according to my aforesaid reasoning the offence i.e. Meethi Supari was found “misbranded” as there was not proper warning in terms of PFA Act i.e. instead of using word “is” word “may” was used earlier punishable u/sec.16(1a) of PFA Act is to be considered as an offence u/sec.52 of FSSA Act for the purposes of awarding punishment. The maximum punishment u/sec.52 FSSA Act is penalty which may extend to Rs. 3 lakhs.

18 It is submitted by Ld. counsel for appellants that appellants have suffered the long pendency of trial and a respectable persons of society and has family. So, lenient view be taken.

19 Opposed by Ld. SPP for State on the ground that the long duration of trial cannot be a ground for leniency.

20 I have gone through the rival contentions on this  aspect.

21 After going through the entire arguments in this regard, it is directed that accused/appellant no. 1 Vikas Vaisnav is directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with the Trial Court. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo SI of 15 days.

Accused/appellant no. 2 M/s Kuber Grain and Spices Pvt. Ltd. is directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with the Trial Court.

22 Fine be deposited within 30 working days.

23 Fine already deposited with the trial court be adjusted.

24 Bail Bond u/sec.437A Cr.P.C. be furnished within 7 working days.

25 TCR be sent back with copy of the order.

26         Copy of order be given dasti.

27         File of appeal be consigned to Record Room.


ANNOUNCED In the open Court                       (RAKESH PANDIT)
today i.e. 24.11.2016                        ASJ-01/New Delhi District
                                          Patiala House Courts/New Delhi

                          CA No. 8560/16
                          Vikas Vaisnav & Ors. Vs. State
24.11.2016

Present:     Sh. M. L. Narang counsel with appellant.
             Sh. A. K. Mishra Ld. SPP for State.

             Arguments on appeal heard.

Bail Bond u/sec.437A Cr.P.C. be furnished within 7 working days.

Put up for order today itself.

(Rakesh Pandit) ASJ-01/PHC/New Delhi District 24.11.2016 At 3.00 a.m. Present: Sh. M. L. Narang counsel with appellant.

Sh. A. K. Mishra Ld. SPP for State.

Vide separate judgment the appeal filed by the appellant is disposed off. Accused/appellant Vikas Vaisnav is directed to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with the Trial Court. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo SI of 15 days.

Accused/appellant no. 2 M/s Kuber Grain and Spices Pvt. Ltd. is directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with the Trial Court.

Fine be deposited within 30 working days.

Fine already deposited with the trial court be adjusted.

Compliance report be sent by trial court to this court.

TCR be sent back with copy of the order.

Copy of order be given dasti.

File of appeal be consigned to Record Room.

(Rakesh Pandit) ASJ-01/PHC/New Delhi District 24.11.2016

Consumer alert : Worms in Parle G biscuits

Food Business Operator : Parle Products Pvt. Ltd

Product : Biscuits

Issue : Worms in biscuits (Pictures as posted by customer)

Worms in Parle G biscuit packetWorms in Parle G biscuit packet
Worms in Parle G biscuit packetWorms in Parle G biscuit packet

Consumer complaint : As posted in consumercomplaints.in by Raj_wakode on Nov 30 th

Hi Parle Team,

This was shocking to us as in the biscuit packet we saw live worms. We had already eaten few biscuits and it was awful to see three worms in that small packet.

It was awful. We give the same biscuits to our kid and looking at this unhygienic biscuit we never want to look back at this biscuit pack which does not have a term called Quality Check!

Complaint status :

[Nov 30, 2016] Parle customer support has been notified about the posted complaint.
Customer Satisfaction Rating : 24%
Complaints : 77, Resolved : 14
Parle Customer Care‘s response, Dec 01, 2016
Dear Mr. Raj, Kindly contact to our Consumer Care Cell desk as the details given on the packet. The details are as below:

Thank you …
CONSUMER CARE CELL
Parle Products Pvt. Ltd.
North Level Crossing, Vile Parle East,
Mumbai – 400 057
Phone No. : 022 – 6691 6929, Email : cs@parle.biz
Visit us at http://www.parleproducts.com
Contact Person: Ms. Rachana More

Food Safety News – Tamilnadu updates – Dec 2

Cashless transactions in Vegetable market begins

Amul gets FSSAI nod for camel milk

 

Soon, you can buy ‘camel’ milk. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has finally given its nod for marketing to Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF), popularly known as Amul. 

Kutch based is already in the process of setting up processing plant which is likely to be operational by March 2017 and will be marketed by Amul. The has officially included in the edible category, said Valamji Humbal, chairman of Sarhad Dairy.
“Since last three years, we were demanding clearance for camel milk. Finally the authority has included it in edible category which now opened doors for marketing for us. Infrastructure for processing is almost ready with us and we are planning to procure and process by end of March 2017. It will be India’s first processing unit,” said Humbal.
 
Confirming the development, R S Sodhi, managing director of said: “We were waiting for an approval from the which has finally come. We need to work on some specifications before launching the by March-April 2017.”  Sodhi added that has mandated a minimum fat requirement of 3% fat.
sometimes tend to be of around 2-2.5% fat which will have to be worked upon during processing in collaboration with Sarhad Dairy,” Sodhi said.
Based on the recommendations of the task force, the has framed standards that specify that the percentage of milk fat and minimum percentage of milk solids in should be at 3% and 6.5%, respectively.
There are about 12,000 camels in Kutch area, of which about 5,500 can give milk. Initially, would be procuring and processing about 2,000 liters per day which would be ramped up based on demand to 10,000 liters a day. The milk will be made available in the market under the ‘Amul’ brand.
Earlier, Sodhi had stated that takes some time before it gains mass appeal, due to its salty flavour. “It’s a very niche product, and no other organised dairy in India is processing it at the moment. It is consumed in West Asia for its health benefits,” he said.
On behalf of Sarhad Dairy, Kutch Breeders’ Association (CMBA) will be collecting the milk and supplying it to the bulk milk cooling centers. 
Humbal said: “It is difficult to collect milk directly as the camel breeders always keep moving place to place in Kutch area so we have asked to collect milk through CMBA and supply it to the nearest milk producing cooperatives.”
is also considering to fix milk procurement price at Rs 40 per liter to the camel owners. However, the retail price will fix by Amul. “We will give better procurement prices for than what they get in the unorganised market currently,” said Sodhi.
The dairy is initially ready to sell milk on a no profit no loss basis and also send a revised report for funding to the state and central governments.
“We are ready to pay more to camel owners as they are tribals and it will also help us to channelise supply from them. We have recently sent a revised project report. Earlier it would have cost about Rs 1.25 crore but now as we have to buy some more machinery for the plant project cost will go up to Rs 2.67 crore,” said Humbal.
The government will be providing 60% of the required fund while the dairy will contribute rest 40%. The state government has already sanctioned Rs 80 lakh for this to the Sarhad Dairy, for an initial capacity of around 5,000 litres per day.
According to Union agriculture ministry’s 19th livestock census report of 2012, the camel population in India is 400,000 in India, of which milch camels are estimated to be 210,000. The total number had fallen 22.6% in 2012, compared to the 2007 census data.

PFA – Delhi District Court – Synthetic Colouring of Arhar Dal – Jagdish Tyagi Vs The State – Nov -24-2016

IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH PANDIT,

ASJ-01, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

CA No. 8550/16 Jagdish Tyagi S/o Sh. Durga Pasad Tyagi, R/o 2906, Main Bazar, Subzi Mandi, ….Appellant

Vs.

The State (DA) …. Respondent Date of receiving of Appeal : 17.04.2014 Date of arguments : 24.11.2016 Date of judgment : 24.11.2016

JUDGEMENT

1 By this judgment I will dispose of appeal u/sec.374 Cr.PC. filed on behalf of Jagdish Tyagi against the judgment dated 14.03.2014 and order on sentence dated 24.03.2014 passed by Sh. Gaurav Rao, then Ld. ACMM-II, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.

2 The brief facts of the case as per record and from trial court record are that accused is running an establishment namely    M/s Tyagi Store, S. No. 2907, Main Bazar, Subzi Mandi, Delhi- 110007. On 20.12.2001 at about 4.00 p.m. Food Inspector Sh. S. K. Gupta visited the said place and purchased 750 grams of “Dal Arhar” (ready for sale) from accused. FI was accompanied with SDM/LHA Sh. G. R. Meena. The said Dal Arhar was purchased for the purposes of analysis under PFA Act. The same sample was divided into three parts, packed as per Rules of PFA. Panchanama was prepared. One sample was sent for analysis to Public Analyst. As per the report of Analyst, sample did not confirm to the standard because “The sample is adulterated because it is coloured with synthetic colouring matter viz. Tartrazine.”

3 As the sample was failed, prosecution was launched by Food Inspector by filing complaint dated 21.11.2002 with the court. Accused was summoned. He has exercised his right u/sec.13(2) PFA Act for getting the sample analyzed from CFL. CFL reported that “I am of the opinion the above sample does not conform to the standards of split pulse (Dal) Arhar as per PFA Rules, 1955.

4 Charge was framed against accused u/sec.2(ia) (a) (j) read with sec.7 of PFA Act, 1954 punishable u/sec.16(1A) of PFA Act.

5 After trial, vide judgment dated 14.03.2014 accused  was convicted for offence u/sec.16(1A) of PFA Act and vide order on sentence dated 24.03.2014 was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 18 months and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine SI of 60 days.

6 In this appeal, the accused has assailed the judgment on the following grounds:-

(i) Non-compliance of Sec.10(7) of PFA Act and Rule i.e. independent witnesses were not joined.

(ii) There is variation in PA and CFL reports.

(iii) The commodity was purchased from M/s Chandgi Ram Atma Ram, 405 Naya Bazar, Delhi-6 vide invoice no. 5626 on 16.11.2001 and thus benefit of warranty u/sec.19 (2) PFA Act goes in favour of appellant.

(iv) After coming into Food Safety & Standards Act, the punishment is to be granted under the said Act (argued orally).

7 No reply was filed by respondent/state and the matter was argued orally.

8 I have gone through the record, Trial Court record and have heard the submissions of Ld. counsel for appellant and Ld. SPP for State.

9 It is argued by counsel for appellant that no public witness was present in the proceedings nor efforts were made to join any public witnesses. As far as this argument is concerned, the same argument was raised before the Ld. Trial Court. The same was dealt by the trial court from para 19 to 22 of the judgment. As far as opinion/finding of the trial court regarding this argument is concerned, I do not find any infirmity in those findings and the same are upheld and the arguments regarding this fact does not find any force and thus rejected.

10 It is further stated that there is variation in the report of PA and CFL and due to that reason benefit goes in favour of the accused. This line of argument was done before the trial court and was dealt in para 49 to 76 of the judgment. I do not want to differ from the reasoning given by the trial court and thus the same is upheld.

11 It is further argued that the commodity was purchased from M/s Chandgi Ram Atma Ram, 405 Naya Bazar, Delhi-6 vide invoice no. 5626 on 16.11.2001 and thus benefit of warranty u/sec.19 (2) PFA Act goes in favour of appellant. This line of argument was done before the trial court and was dealt in para 87 to 93 of the judgment. I do not want to differ from the reasoning given by the trial court and thus the same is upheld.

So, in these circumstances, I do not find any ground for change/modification of Trial Court’s judgment, on merits. So, the finding of the trial court with respect to the conviction of accused u/sec.2(ia) (a) (j) of PFA Act 1954 read with Sec.16(1A) of PFA Act,  is upheld.

12 It is submitted by Ld. counsel for appellant that on the date of judgment/order on sentence, the PFA Act, 1954 was repealed. It is further stated that the court should have passed the order on sentence as per the quantum/punishment mentioned in Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter called FSSA). For this purpose, Ld. counsel for appellant had relied on Judgment i.e. Nemi Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan (Crl. Appeals No. 214 and 215 of 2016, vide order dated 10.03.2016, as corrected vide order dated 17.03.2016, as reported in 2016 (1) FAC 203) of Hon. Supreme Court and earlier judgment T Barai Vs. Henry, 1983 (1) SCC 177.

13 On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. SPP for State that the sentencing cannot be done in new Act since the definition of many offences are changed in the new Act including this particular offence of which accused is charged. Definition of major offences like “adulteration” and “misbranding” have been changed. Now FSSA have definition “substandard food”, “food containing extraneous matter”, “unsafe food” and “misbranded food”. Due to this reason, the ingredients have changed and thus there is no way in which the old offences could be related to new offences.

14 As far as the objection of Ld. SPP for State is concerned, in the present case, the offence was that the article/food i.e. Dal Arhar was found as being coloured with synthetic colour “Tartrazine”. This was violation of Rule 29 of PFA Rules and thus termed as adulteration in view of Sec.2(ia)(j) of PFA Act and thus consequently punishable u/sec.16(1) of PFA Act. The charge was framed with these facts. There was no charge in which it is stated that the said colour was injurious to health. Had it been the case, the charge should have been u/sec.16(1-A) (ii) of PFA Act.

15 Now in the FSSA, such adulteration is termed as “unsafe food” in terms of Sec.3(zz) (vii) of FSSA Act punishable u/sec.59(i) of FSSA.

So, if we go through both these provisions of law, a particular offence with a particular fact is mentioned with some other name but with same ingredients in the new FSSA Act.

16 Hence, it is held that it is the ingredients which constitute an offence, determines that whether it is the same offence but with new name or an altogether different offence. Here the offence of adding colour in the food article which was punishable u/sec.16(1A) PFA Act is similar to the offence u/sec.59(i) of FSSA Act.

17 As far as the application of Nemi Chand judgment (supra) is concerned, the same is based on the old judgment i.e. T. Barai (supra) of Hon. Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the T. Barai judgment is as follows:-

(Para 25) – It is settled both on authority and principle that when a later statute again describes an offence created by an earlier statute and imposes a different punishment, or varies the procedure, the earlier statute is repealed by implication. In Michell v. Brown [(1958) 120 ER 909, 912: 32 LTOS 146 : 7 WR 80] Lord Campbell put the matter thus:

“It is well settled rule of construction that, if a later statute again describes an offence created by a former statute and affixes a different punishment, varying the procedure, the earlier statute is repealed by the later statute; see also Smith v. Benabo [(1937) 1 All ER 523: (1937) 1 KB 518: 156 LT 194] .

In Regina v. Youle [(1861) 158 ER 311, 315-16: 4 LT 299: 9 WR 637] , Martin, B. said in the oft-quoted passage:

“If a statute deals with a particular class of offences, and a subsequent Act is passed which deals with precisely the same offences, and a different punishment is imposed by the later Act, I think that, in effect, the legislature has declared that the new Act shall be substituted for the earlier Act.”

The rule is however subject to the limitation contained in Article 20(1) against ex post facto law providing for a greater punishment and has also no application where the offence described in the later Act is not the same as in the earlier Act i.e. when the essential ingredients of the two offences are different.

Moreover this particular aspect is stated as a illustration in the same judgment in para 23 which is as follows:-

 To illustrate, if Parliament were to reenact Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and provide that the punishment for an offence of murder shall be sentence for imprisonment for life instead of the present sentence of death or imprisonment for life, then it cannot be that the courts would still award a sentence of death even in pending cases.

So, in these circumstances, it can be safely said that while considering on the point of sentence, the quantum of sentence in new Act i.e. FSSA is to be considered.

18 Now according to my aforesaid reasoning the offence of adding colour in food articles i.e. Dal Arhar, earlier punishable u/sec.16(1A) of PFA Act is to be considered as an offence u/sec.59(i) of FSSA Act for the purposes of awarding punishment. The maximum punishment u/sec.59(i) FSSA Act is imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with fine which may extend to Rs.1 lac.

19 It is submitted by Ld. counsel for appellant that appellant is a small shopkeeper. He has suffered the long pendency of trial and a respectable person of society and has family. So, lenient view be taken.

20 Opposed by Ld. SPP for State on the ground that the long duration of trial cannot be a ground for leniency.

21 I have gone through the rival contentions on this aspect.

22 After going through the entire arguments in this regard, it is directed that accused/appellant Jagdish Tyagi is directed to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and directed to pay fine of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with the Trial Court. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo SI of 15 days.

23 Fine be deposited within 30 working days.

24 Fine already deposited with the trial court be adjusted.

25 Bail Bond u/sec.437A Cr.P.C. already furnished and accepted for six months.

26 TCR be sent back with copy of the order.

27         Copy of order be given dasti.

28         File of appeal be consigned to Record Room.



ANNOUNCED In the open Court                     (RAKESH PANDIT)
today i.e. 24.11.2016                      ASJ-01/New Delhi District
                                        Patiala House Courts/New Delhi

                         CA No. 8550/16
                         Jagdish Tyagi Vs. State
24.11.2016

Present:     Sh. M. L. Narang counsel with appellant.
             Sh. A. K. Mishra Ld. SPP for State.

In this case the charge had been framed by this court, in trial court. On being asking, Ld. counsel for parties have stated that they have no objection, if the appeal is heard and decided by this court.

Even vide order dated 22.12.2015 in CA No. 57/15 titled “Mangey Ram Vs. State”, Ld. District & Session Judge, NDD/PHC had observed that framing of notice does not come in the way of disposal of the case on merits.

Arguments on appeal heard.

Bail Bond u/sec.437A Cr.P.C. already furnished and accepted for six months.

Put up for order today itself.

(Rakesh Pandit) ASJ-01/PHC/New Delhi District 24.11.2016 At 3.00 a.m. Present: Sh. M. K. Narang counsel with appellant.

 Sh. A. K. Mishra Ld. SPP for State.

Vide separate judgment the appeal filed by the appellant is disposed off. Accused/appellant Jagdish Kumar is directed to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and directed to pay fine of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with the Trial Court. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo SI of 15 days.

Fine be deposited within 30 working days.

Fine already deposited with the trial court be adjusted.

Compliance report be sent by trial court to this court.

TCR be sent back with copy of the order.

Copy of order be given dasti.

File of appeal be consigned to Record Room.

(Rakesh Pandit) ASJ-01/PHC/New Delhi District 24.11.2016        

Consumer alert – Pay TM Mobile Solutions – Wrong Product delivered

Supplier : PayTM Mobile Solutions

Image result for paytm logo

Product ordered : ON(Optimum Nutrition)Gold  Standard  100% Whey Protein Strawberry Flavoured 5lbs

Product delivered : ON Chocolate Flavoured with less quantity (seal tampered)

Issue : Wrong product delivery, No response from Customer Care on the complaint

Consumer complaint : As posted by Rahul Pandit on Nov 28th in consumercomplaints.in

I ordered one ON (optimum nutrition) 100% whey protein 5lbs strawberry flavoured on 16th november through paytm app Ordered number:- 2228759504 @ Rs 7399. they had given me time of delivery in b/w period 21 nov-24th november. but one day late finally i received our ordered on 25 nov 16 with packing when i opened that package i surprised to see that the whey protein is come without seal pack inside and outside and it was already open by someone else . i ordered strawberry flavored but they sent to me a chocolate flavored with lass quantity . i tried to contact him telephonically @ customer care no 01203062244. and sent many time email to them but didn’t get any reply so finally i write to you. i want my cash back and return that product. please help me

i give you all the details for my product as following as under:-
OPtimum nutrition gold standard 100%whey protein 5lb delicious strawberry
Ordered date :- 16 November 2016
Ordered number:- 2228759504
Resisters phn number on paytm :- 9999818275
Email id atulmudgal2011@gmail.com
Price :-7399

Pictures as posted by the customer

Regarding cash back and return of the product which i received without seal pack and opened (On whey protein)Regarding cash back and return of the product which i received without seal pack and opened (On whey protein)
Regarding cash back and return of the product which i received without seal pack and opened (On whey protein)Regarding cash back and return of the product which i received without seal pack and opened (On whey protein)
Customer Satisfaction Rating : 4%
Complaints : 7689, Resolved : 233
PESPRO Comments:
Dear Mr.Rahul Pandit, as for as your complaint is concerned PayTM is responsible for the lapses. It is their duty to replace and supply the ordered product. If their response is poor you can take up this matter with a consumer forum for deficiency of services.