IMPORTANT POINT
After coming into force of provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, authorities can take action only under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sharma, and S.N.H. Zaidi, JJ.—Heard Shri Umesh Chandra and Nageshwar Rao, Senior Advocates, assisted by Sri Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners and Sri Jyotendra Mishra, learned Advocate General, duly assisted by Government Advocate.

2. As in all the aforesaid writ petitions, question of law was involved and as such, both the parties consented for deciding the matter finally without exchange of pleadings, at the admission stage itself. Consequently, all the writ petitions are being deciding by a common order.

3. In all the afore-captioned writ petitions, petitioners have questioned the validity of the Government Order dated 11.5.2010 issued by the State Government directing the police to register cases or initiate action under Sections 272/273 IPC inter alia on the ground that it has resulted in gross violation of fundamental rights of the employee’s and agents of the Company as available under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and have consequently prayed for quashing of the FIR registered against the employees of the Company in different districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

In writ petition No.8254 (MB) of 2010, petitioner No.2 Sumit Sehgal is the distributor of the company, who has been arrested on 11.8.2010 in pursuance of FIR dated 11.8.2010 registered as Case Crime No.392 of 2010 under Sections 272/273 IPC at PS Cantt. District Varanasi.

In Writ Petition No.8255 (MB) of 2010, petitioner No.2 Wajid Ali is Quality Control Executive of the Company and petitioner No.3 Mohd. Shahid is Manager of the CFA Agency of the Company. They were arrested in pursuance of the FIR dated 11.8.2010 registered at PS Khuldabad, District Allahabad as Case Crime No. 244 of 2010 under Section 273 IPC

In writ petition No.8256 (MB) of 2010, petitioners were arrested pursuant to the FIR dated 12.8.2010 registered at police station Rohania District Varanasi as case crime No. 144/10 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 7/16 of the PFA Act and Rules 32, 49, 50 of the Rules framed thereunder. In the said case, the prosecution moved an application for alteration of sections, which was allowed by the competent Court and the petitioners were remanded only under Section 273 IPC and Sections 51 and 57 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

4. Draped in brevity, the facts of the case are that the petitioner Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited, is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of soft drinks inter alia under the brand name of PEPSI, Lehar, 7UP, Slice and Miranda etc. The company is aggrieved by the issuance of the Government Order dated 11.5.2010 issued by the State Government as it gives unfettered powers to the authorities to initiate action against violators or suspected violators for food adulteration and misbranding by invoking Sections 272/273 IPC by registering FIRs. After the issuance of the aforesaid Government Order, various products of the Company were seized from the godown and FIRs were registered against the officers/agents of the company under Sections 272/273 IPC and Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘PFA Act’].

5. Sri Nagendra Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, while giving a summary of the history of legislation on Food laws, took us to the past and stated that Chapter XIV of the Indian Penal Code deals with “Offences affecting the public health”. Sections 272 and 273 IPC deal with public health by making penal offences pertaining to adulteration of food etc. and sale of noxious food or drink. Thereafter the Parliament in the year 1954 enacted “The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954” which was a complete code in itself providing for various penalties for adulteration of food stuff and other related subjects. It also provided an exhaustive procedure for the inquiry and trial of such offences, regulating the manu