The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for contraventions to be adjudicated by the Adjudication Officer and the imposition of civil penalties under Section 58 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

With the help of this application, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an accused in the case, has sought for, inter alia, quashing of not only the First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR’), lodged by Food Safety Officer, Patna, which led to the registration of Gandhi Maidan Police Station Case No. 344 of 2015, under Section 58 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (in short the ‘Act’), but also the charge sheet, which has been submitted therein in purported exercise of power under Section 173(2)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. In a nutshell, the allegations, giving rise to the lodging of the First Information Report, are, in brief, set out as under:

(i) Upon secret information, the premises of one Banarsi Paan Shop, situated in Raj Complex, at Dak Bungalow Road, Patna, belonging to the petitioner, was raided by the Food Safety Officer with the help of police and, on conducting the search, Paan Masala and Zarda (chewing tobacco) were seized, seizure list was prepared and the persons, from whose possession the goods had been seized, were taken to police station with the aid of the police.

(ii) Based on the First Information Report, Gandhi Maidan Police Station Case No.344 of 2015, under Section 58 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, was registered and following the investigation, which was conducted by the police, a charge sheet has been submitted under Section 58 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

3. We have heard Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General No.6, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

4. It is the submission of Mr. Prabhat Ranjan that Section 58 of the Act does not give jurisdiction to the police to entertain any First Information Report and register any criminal case inasmuch as there is no offence, which Section 58 envisages, and it (Section 58) merely makes the person, who commits an omission, which falls within the ambit of Section 58, liable to pay penalty. It is also submitted by Mr. Prabhat Ranjan that Section 58 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 does not envisage prosecution and/or punishment, but imposes penalty, which involves civil consequences.

5. As regards the seizure of chewing tobacco by the Food Safety Officer, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan’s contention is that the seizure is beyond jurisdiction as chewing tobacco is a scheduled tobacco product within the meaning and definition of tobacco products.

6. From a conjoint reading of the contents of the First Information Report and the charge sheet, it is clear, points out, learned counsel, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, that petitioner was arrested by the police and was taken to the police station, which were wholly without jurisdiction and that the present one is a fit case for exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the First Information Report as well as the charge sheet may, therefore, be quashed.

7. The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, according to Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, lays down a special procedure and an elaborate mechanism for launching of prosecution for commission of offences as envisaged by the Act.

8. Without expressing any opinion on the question as to whether Zarda, Paan Masala and scented tobacco fall within the definition of ‘food’, as envisaged by Section 3(j) of the Act, it needs to be pointed out that the Act, when read carefully as a whole, makes it clear that the Act stands, broadly speaking, divided into two parts. While one part of the Act deals with the prosecution of an offender and the punishment prescribed for the offence concerned, the other part of the Act deals with adjudication of default on the part of a person and punishes such contravener by penalty. This would be evident from the fact that acts of omissions or commissions, as mentioned in Sections 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57 and 58 of the Act provide only for imposition