JUDGMENT :

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.

1. This revisional application has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of proceeding under Duttapukur P.S. Case No.202 of 2017 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 272/273/420 of the IPC read with Section 103/104/108 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 pending before the Learned Court of 5^th Additional District & Session Judge, Barasat.

Factual Matrix

2. The fact of the case in a nutshell is that the petitioner no.1 into the business of manufacturing food items and having a registered company title as M/s. Origin Food Products and subsequently the company of petitioner no.1 got the license in manufacturing of Pickels made from vegetable or other edible plant materials including mushrooms, Chilly Sauce, Jams, Fruit Jellies and Marmalades, Pickles made from fruits Soyabean sauce and Tomato Ketchup and Tomato sauce. Petitioner no.1 obtained such valid and necessary licence from Food Safely and Standards Authority of India vide licence no.1281701300018.The petitioner no 1 further got their Trade Mark registered from the concerned authority in the year 2008. The petitioner no 1 further applied and obtained the necessary license from Pollution Control Board, accreditation from JAS -ANZ, ISO certification etc. to operate the said business in lawful manner.

3. The problem cropped up one very afternoon when the petitioners were busy in their daily routine of business, the opposite party no.2 and 4 and the respective team along with the police force of Duttapukur P.S. conducted a raid in the factory of petitioner no.1 on the ground of strength of a complaint vide G.D.E. No.1595 alleging the petitioners are involved in manufacturing and selling sauce, Jam, Jelly, Squash etc. which are adulterated/noxious in nature for better profit. The opposite party no.3 and 4 reached the spot at 13.55 p.m. and arranged three local witnesses and conducted such raid and instructed them to remain present with the police force. After the same, the team also seized list of items on the premises and thereafter, the proceeding was initiated. The present petitioner has come before this Court for quashing of the entire proceeding.

Submission

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent no.4 while filing Charge Sheet did not utter a single word about the process of seizure of Food items nor mentioned the seized items were sent to the designated testing Lab that is the Public Analysits (Food &Water) West Bengal Public Health Laboratory .It is the specific point raised by the Learned Counsel that as per the decision of Christy Fried Gram Industry vs Sate of Karnataka ,2016 Crl.LJ 482 the FSS Act itself is competent to carry out such raids and prosecutions as the nature of offence is alleged in this instant matter .It is further submitted that the investigation as carried out by the I.O is beyond the jurisdiction under the law and the respondent no 4 has no power or jurisdiction to investigate the alleged offence as neither followed the provisions of section 38,41,42 ,47 of the FSS Act depriving the petitioner to prefer appeal under section 46(4) of the said Act.

5. In this regard, relied upon the decision of Sushil Kr. Gupta Vs. The State of West Bengal(CRR No. 2795 of 2017) and Ali Mohammad Bhat & Ors. VS. UT of J. & K(CRM(M) No.310 of 2024),

6. It is further their stand that the respondent no 3 has fabricated the story and alleged the instant petitioners for offence under section 77/78/82 of the Trade Mark Act and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 but changed the frame of allegations at the time of filing charge sheet and slapped section 103/104/108 of the Trade Mark Act 1999 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

7. The learned prosecution on the other hand relied upon the decision of Ram Nath Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2024 INSC 138 and would submit that the FIR was registered alleging commission