Back
RANJIT MORE, BHARATI DANGRE
Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia, R/o Ramadhar Chawl – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through Public Prosecutor Office – Respondent
What is the scope of Section 30(2)(a) of the FSS Act and whether it can justify action under IPC Sections 188 and 328? What are the doctrinal requirements for proving an offence under IPC Section 328 (direct administration vs. causing to be taken) in the context of storage and sale of tobacco products under the FSS Act? What is the admissible interplay between prosecution under the FSS Act and under the IPC when a prohibitory order under the FSS Act is violated?
Key Points: - (!) The petition challenges actions under Sections 328 and 188 IPC in the context of prohibitions on tobacco products under FSS Act. - (!) The Court analyzes whether disobedience of a prohibitory order issued under Section 30(2)(a) of the FSS Act can attract IPC Sections 188 and 328. - (!) It discusses the definitions and elements of Section 328 (direct administering vs. causing to be taken) and cites Joseph Kurian Philip Jose for standard of proof. - (!) It references Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan on permissible dual prosecutions under different enactments, but with no double punishment for the same offence. - (!) It concludes that mere storage or possession of tobacco products does not satisfy Section 328 or 188 unless there is direct or causative action leading to hurt or danger. - (!) The Division Bench’s approach to Section 328 was critiqued for missing binding precedent; the judgment ultimately exercises discretion to quash IPC charges while allowing FSS Act proceedings. - (!) The matter clarifies that the contravention under FSS Act can be pursued, but IPC charges relating to storage alone are not sustainment. - (!) The judgment cites the scheme of FSS Act sections (Sections 41, 42, 49, 59, 60, 55) and penalties for unsafe food. - (!) The final disposition includes quashing and setting aside the FIR to the extent it registered IPC offences but not prohibiting prosecution under FSS Act. - (!) The Court emphasizes that there is no bar to prosecution under IPC when FSS Act provides penalties, but not double punishment.
JUDGMENT :
Bharati Dangre, J.
The tobacco epidemic is one of the biggest public health threat the world ever faced, killing 8 million and the Report of the World Health Organization dated 26/07/2019 brings out that more than 7 million of those deaths, are the result of the direct use of tobacco. Good monitoring tracks the extent and character of this tobacco epidemic and indicates how to evolve best policies to deal with this menace. The steps taken throughout the world in the form of bans imposed on tobacco advertisement and promotion, pictorial health warning and the high rate of taxes dealing with illicit trade of tobacco, has yielded some positive results.
2. The scale of human and economic tragedy that tobacco imposed is shocking. In 2003, the World Health Organization member states universally adopted the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control ("WHO FCTC"), which came into force in 2005. It has currently 185 parties covering more than 90% of the world population. There is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industries' interest on the one hand and public health industries' interest on the other hand.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
