JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State respondents.

2. As has been held by the Honble High Court of Karnataka in Lochamesh B. Hugar and others vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2014 (4) Crimes 244 (Karnt), "WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE, BUT NOT A DROP TO DRINK" (quotation from English Poet Samuael Taylor Coleridge), the present story depicted in the FIR reflects so.

3. One resident of Baihata Chariali, namely Rubul Choudhury being annoyed with the business run by the M/s. Silver Drop Food and Beverages Pvt. Ltd., situated as Sila Mohekhati at Amingaon (hereinafter referred to as the manufacturer), suspecting the water bottles sold by the said manufacturer to be contaminated one which may cause health hazard to the people in general, lodged an FIR on 07.01.2016, before the officer-in-charge of the Baihata Chariali P.S. with the allegation that by such dealing of contaminated water by the said manufacturer, there is a apprehension that it will result health hazard to the person of the locality. The informant has also submitted some water bottles to the officer-in-charge concerned while filing the FIR but he has not indicated whether he has purchased those bottles as a customer or not. However on the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No.11/2016, u/s.420/273 IPC was registered.

4. Challenging the registration of the said case, the present petition has been preferred by the manufacturer on the ground that in view of the special Act that has been enacted in regards to the food item i.e. the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (in short the FSS Act) and the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation, 2011, registration of such an FIR is bad in law as food item is covered under the said Act and Regulation, including the packaged drinking water.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in his challenge to the aforesaid FIR has submitted that after coming into force of the FSS Act, every examination of the food article, suspected to be adulterous or contaminated is to be dealt with under the aforesaid Act and the police has no authority to register the case, as the Special Act has an overriding effect upon the IPC.

6. Elaborating the provisions of the aforesaid FSS Act, it has been submitted that under the said Act, it has been provided how to carry out the detection of adulteration of the food products as mandated u/s.40 and 41 of the FSS Act and such a strict adherence to the procedure is to be complied with prior to lodging a complaint about adulterated food. Accordingly it has been submitted that the instant FIR has been registered in violation of the provisions of Section 47(1)(a) and Section 47(1)(c)(iii) of the FSS Act, in as much as Rule 2.4.5(1) and (2) of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011.

7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S. Chamaria has also relied upon the decisions of M/s. Pepsico Indian Holdings (Pvt.) Ltd. and another vs. State of U.P. and others reported in MANU/UP/3189/2010, Prahlad Raghuvanshi @ Raja and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2013 (3) MPHT 54 and the decision of Christy Fried Gram Industry and others vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2016 CriLJ 482, to submit that the provision of Sections 272/273 IPC has now become redundant in view of the special Act that has come into force.

8. I have gone through the decisions so relied upon by the petitioners, wherefrom it is found that the aforesaid aspects was elaborately dealt with in the above decisions.

9. In M/s. Pepsico (Supra), it has been held that Section 272 IPC is attracted when a person adulterates an article of food with the intention to sell such an article or knowing that it is likely that the article will be sold as food or drink. Further it is held that the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act was enacted earlier for p