SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Cal) 1193

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.
Sushil Kr. Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.R. No. 2795 of 2017, IA No. CRAN 12 of 2022
Decided On : 02-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ayan Bhattacharjee, Anmupam Dasadhikari, Apalak Basu, Snehal Seth, Debarka Guha.
For the Respondents: Sudip Ghosh, Debjani Sahu.

The police, not being Food Safety Officer under FSS Act 2006, are not empowered to investigate into the offences mentioned specially in FSS Act. But nothing can debar police to investigate an offence punishable under IPC.

Headnote:

FOOD SAFETY - ADULTERATION - JURISDICTION - INVESTIGATION - FOOD SAFETY OFFICER - POLICE - FIR - SECTION 272/273 IPC - SECTION 155(2) CR.P.C. - Whether the police constituted under Police Act, not being a Food Safety Officer under the Special Act namely Food Safety and Standard Act 2006 is empowered to investigate into the case? Whether a FIR can be registered u/s 272/273 of the IPC without an order of Magistrate u/s 155(2) Cr.P.C. regard being had to the fact that the offence u/s 272/273 IPC are non-congnizable in nature.

Fact of the Case:

Huge quantity of alleged adulterated and spurious food items was seized from the possession of the petitioners. In all the three cases, the investigation is being conducted by the police.

Finding of the Court:

The police, not being Food Safety Officer under FSS Act 2006, are not empowered to investigate into the offences mentioned specially in FSS Act. But nothing can debar police to investigate an offence punishable under IPC. The argument of implied repeal of Section 272/273 IPC appears to me not satisfactory or justified. Considering the same I am of a clear view that though a separate, specific, distinct procedure has been laid down in FSS Act 2006 to initiate/launch a proceeding against the offender of Food Laws that does not ipso facto debar the police to initiate/resgister a case u/s 272 or 273 of IPC. Thus in my view the investigation conducted by the police according to the provisions of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s 272/273 IPC is maintainable.

Issues: 1. Whether the police constituted under Police Act, not being a Food Safety Officer under the Special Act namely Food Safety and Standard Act 2006 is empowered to investigate into the case? 2. Whether a FIR can be registered u/s 272/273 of the IPC without an order of Magistrate u/s 155(2) Cr.P.C. regard being had to the fact that the offence u/s 272/273 IPC are non-congnizable in nature.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The police are not specifically debarred to conduct investigation over the offence mentioned in Section 272/273 of IPC. 2. The police may conduct investigation of non-cognizable case (u/s 272, 273, IPC) with cognizable case (u/s 420 IPC) without an order of Magistrate u/s 155 (4) Cr.P.C.

Final Decision: CRR is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.

1. All the three revisions are taken up for passing decision as a common question of law is involved. All the three criminal revisional applications are preferred for quashing three criminal proceeding pending before the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned. The criminal proceeding was initiated in all the three cases u/s 272/273/420/120B of IPC.

2. In all the three cases a huge quantity of alleged adulterated and spurious food items was seized from the possession of the petitioners. In all the three cases, the investigation is being conducted by the police.

3. Apart from the factual deviation of the three separate cases the law involved under challenge herein appears to me same:

    Point No. 1.

Whether the police constituted under Police Act, not being a Food Safety Officer under the Special Act namely Food Safety and Standard Act 2006 is empowered to investigate into the case?

Point No. 2.

Whether a FIR can be registered u/s 272/273 of the IPC without an order of Magistrate u/s 155(2) Cr.P.C. regard being had to the fact that the offence u/s 272/273 IPC are non-congnizable in nature.

4. Both the points are taken up together: It is argued that on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned proceeding is gross abuse of process of court which if allowed to be continued that would be tantamount to be the harassment beyond the scope of law of the land. The Food Safety and Standard Act 2006 (hereinafter referred as a Special Act) come into effect to consolidate the laws relating to Food and establish Food Safety Standard Authorities for laying down science based Standards for articles of Food to regulate their manufacture Storage Distribution sale and import to ensure availability safe and whole sale food and for matters connected therewith and instantly thereto. With the introduction of the Special Act, it expressly declared that any violation relating to Food shall be governed by the Special Act and not under any other Act for the time being enforced.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted before this court that the proceeding initiated by the investigating agency and the submission of charge sheet thereof is unwarranted in the eye of law. He submitted that the police is not at all authorised to investigate any offence under the Special Act (Food Safety Standard Act 2006). It is the further opinion of the petitioner that no seizure has been affected from the premises factory of the petitioner. In absence of seizure of adulterate spurious unsafe food from a place in occupation of the accused a proceeding under the provisions of the FSS Act would not be sustainable even by taking of challans from each place. So he prayed for quashing for the entire proceeding.

6. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the state submitted before this court that the police has seized huge amount of adulterated food items from the possession of the petitioner. Several seizure has been affected in different places. The spurious food items (ghee) were also misbranded by the petitioner. The petitioner by selling those adulterated food item to the public in large also cheated the public. The investigation of the police is ended in charge sheet with some distinct materials regarding prima facie involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged offence. Thus at this juncture the proceeding cannot be quashed.

7. Heard the Learned Advocate perused the materials on record also perused the proceeding initiated by the police in this case.

8. Before discussion about the pronouncement of laws by the different High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that matter it would be prudent to illustrate the statutory provision.

9. That section 272 of the Indian Penal Code states as follows:

    “Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale - whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              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

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
              whatsapp-icon Back to top