The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of nemo debet bis vexari and autrefois acquit under Section 300 of the CrPC, emphasizing that no person shall be put twice in peril for the same offence.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale,J. - Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.

3. The petitioner has invoked the principles of nemo debet bis vexari (no man shall be put twice in peril for the same offence) and autrefois acquit (the person has been acquitted on a same charge on which he is being prosecuted), embodied in Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), in order to demonstrate that the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana in the present case has erred in passing the impugned order.

4. On 27/01/2014, the Food Safety Officer, Buldhana submitted a complaint before the police alleging that banned substance i.e. Gutkha and other such material was found stored in Om Shanti Pan Center at Malkapur, run by the petitioner. On this basis, First Information Report (FIR) stood registered against the petitioner for alleged offences under Sections 188, 273 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as also Section 59(iii) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'FSS Act').

5. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 188 and 272 of the IPC and Section 59 of the FSS Act. Regular Criminal Case No.28 of 2014, was conducted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Malkapur. After recording of evidence in the said trial, by judgment and order dated 24/08/2015, the petitioner was acquitted of the said offences. The Magistrate found that the material on record was not sufficient to prove the said offences against the petitioner.

6. In the interregnum, during the pendency of the aforesaid trial, another Food Safety Officer, on 20/01/2015, initiated a criminal case before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana, for the very same incident dated 27/01/2014, wherein Gutkha and other such material was allegedly recovered from the Pan Center, run by the petitioner. The said proceedings bearing S.C.C.No.90 of 2015, were pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana when, on 09/02/2018 the petitioner moved an application (Exh.19) before the said Court for dismissal of the said case, by relying upon Section 300 of the CrPC. The petitioner relied upon the aforesaid judgment and order dated 24/08/2015 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Malkapur, acquitting him of offences under the IPC and the FSS Act, to contend that criminal proceedings could not be initiated against him again on the basis of the very same allegation and for the same alleged offence under Section 59 of the FSS Act.

7. On 26/02/2018, the respondents filed their reply, opposing the said application. It was contended that the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Malkapur, were void ab initio, because the Food Safety Officer had not followed the mandate of Section 42 of the FSS Act before initiating prosecution against the petitioner under Section 59 of the FSS Act. By the impugned order dated 27/02/2019, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana, rejected the said application filed on behalf of the petitioner. The said Court found that even though there was an order of acquittal in favour of the petitioner for offence under Section 59 of the FSS Act, since the acquittal order was passed by a Court, which was not competent to try offence under the FSS Act, the order of acquittal could be of no avail. It was held that since the order of acquittal was passed by the Court, which could not be said to be a Court of competent jurisdiction, Section 300 of the CrPC could not be invoked. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in which notice was issued and the respondents filed their reply. The petition was finally heard.

8. Mr. Akshay Naik, learned cou