Ghaziabad: Caught selling adulterated paneer in 2021, Vishal Singhal, the owner of Jai Durga Dairy in Ghaziabad, was handed a Rs 5,000 fine. Singhal pleaded guilty in court and requested minimum punishment.
The additional chief judicial magistrate court said Singhal would be sent to jail for 30 days if he failed to submit the fine amount within the stipulated time.ACJM Neha Badhaunia said that the accused is sentenced to a fine of Rs 4,000 under Section 51 of the Food Safety and Standards Act (selling or manufacture of substandard food, not essentially harmful). “In default of payment of the fine, the accused will undergo an additional 30 days of simple imprisonment,” the court ruled.It further imposed a fine of Rs 1,000 and imprisonment until the rising of the court under Section 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act (punishment for manufacture, storing, sale or importing unsafe food for human consumption, which does not result in injury). In default of payment of the fine, the accused will undergo an additional 10 days of simple imprisonment.On Jan 8, 2021, an FIR was filed against Singhal under sections 51, 59(1) and 58 of the Food Safety and Standards Act after he was found selling adulterated paneer.
Ghaziabad food safety officer Umashankar, along with a team, inspected Jai Durga Dairy in Sihani Gate and collected samples for testing. The sample was sent to Lucknow for analysis, where the report dated April 6, 2021, found it to be substandard and unsafe.The accused appeared before the court, and a confession petition was submitted stating that he wishes to voluntarily admit his crime and requested that the case be settled with the minimum punishment.Section 58 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, acts as a catch-all penalty clause. It dictates that any person who contravenes FSSAI regulations, rules or provisions for which no specific penalty is explicitly provided elsewhere in the Act is liable to a penalty that may extend to Rs 2 lakh. Given the fact that the accused was also charged for offences under other sections, the court dropped this section and the accused was sentenced for offences under sections 51 and 59(i).
