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
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:
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:
Dr. D.C. Wadha and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others
Kaptan Sing vs. State of U.P. (2021) 9 SCC 35
State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others
State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Sayyed Hasan and Sayyed Subhan and Others
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....
Under Section 42 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, The Food Safety Officer shall be responsible for inspection of food business, drawing samples and sending them to Food Analyst for analysis.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 have an overriding effect over the Indian Penal Code, and the procedure for launching....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 overrides the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and other special sections, and only authorizes Food....
(1) Sale of adulterated food – Concept of unsafe food is more comprehensive than concept of adulterated food – By virtue of Section 89 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Section 59 will override....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.