Point of Law: Provision of Section 4(2) of CrPC, all offences under any other law shall be dealt with in accordance with enactment regulating manner of investigation and trial etc. and as such FSS being a complete statute, has an overriding effect as Special Act to deal with such food items.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and Mr. M. Phukan, learned P.P., Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos.3 & 4.

2. By way of this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned seizure, made by the respondent No.2, contending that the same has been made out without the authority of law and quite illegal and prayer has been made to quash and set aside the seizure memo dated 09.03.2022, in connection with the MIDC P.S. Solapur Case No.802/21.

3. The petitioner herein is a company incorporated under the provisions of Company Act, 1956, by name Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., having its registered office at New Delhi and manufacturing unit at Bamunimaida Industrial Estate, Guwahati. The petitioner company has been granted license by the competent authority under the Food Safety Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FSS Act’), to manufacture pan-masala, which is classified as a food product and it is a product standardized under the Regulation No.2.11.5 of Food Safety and Standard Regulation. The Rajanigandha pan-masala is a premium product of the petitioner company, manufactured in the factory situated at Bamunimaidam and they are manufacturing and selling pan-masala in accordance with the provisions of the FSS Act.

4. An FIR dated 06.12.2021 was registered as FIR No.802/21, at the MIDC Police Station, Solapur in Maharashtra against one Md. Imran Mohammed Hanif under Section 188/272/273/328 IPC, read with Section 26(2)(i)—(iv)(e) and Section 59 of the FSS Act, for possession of Rajanigandha pan-masala and Scented Tobacco and Baba Nabaratan pan-masala, etc. which are prohibited items of food, in view of the notification issued by the Commissioner of FSS and Drug Administration, Maharashtra, dated 20.07.2019.

5. In course of investigation, the stock of pan-masala, tobacco, recovered from the FIR named accused Md. Imran Mohammed Hanif was seized and he was arrested, subsequent to the FIR. Various notice was served upon the petitioner Company at New Delhi, for production of certain documents under Section 91 of the CrPC and the petitioner immediately responded to the same by detail reply along with the documents. Suddenly on 09.03.2022, respondent No.2, who is the investigating officer of the said case, visited the factory of the petitioner at Bamunimaidam and entered into the premises along with police officials of Chandmari P.S., without any document/search warrant from the Court of Law and the respondent No.2 forcibly seized the entire machinery and articles from the factory of the petitioner and prepared the seizure list (panchnama) and also sealed the gate of the petitioner company’s factory. The seized/finished pan-masala was worth more than one crore and was lying in the production hall, to be sent for packaging. Such pan-masala contains highly hygroscopic substance like katha, which attract moisture and exposure to such moisture has caused huge loss to the articles.

6. Challenging the aforesaid search and seizure made by the respondent No.2, present writ petition has been preferred contending that Maharashtra Police has no jurisdiction and power to seize the factory, fix plant and machinery and other articles, whereas petitioner has not contravened any law in Solapur, Maharashtra and whereas the petitioner has due license to produce pan-masala given by the appropriate authority and the company is also not an FIR named accused. It is accordingly contended that seizure of the factory and machinery of the petitioner company defies logic and is illegal and whimsical, without sanction of law.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Dr. A. Saraf has vehemently urged before this Court that such search and seizure has been made in utter disregard to the prescribed procedure under Section 102 CrPC and police authority has no power to seize such property