Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 1539
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
B.L Purohit, Nominee wholesale Firm M/s. Tirupati Proteins Private Limited - Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 586 of 2013
Decided On : 01-11-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.N Vyas
For the Respondent: Mr. M.S Panwar, PP
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, based on the acceptance of the Act by the State and the date of the samples.
Headnote:
Section 482 of Cr.P.C - Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 - The court dismissed the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, stating that the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 was not applicable to the case as the samples were taken prior to the Act coming into force in the State of Rajasthan.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C against an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, challenging the applicability of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 to the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 was not applicable to the case as the State of Rajasthan had not accepted the repealing or the main act, and the samples in the petitions were taken prior to the Act coming into force.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 to the case, considering the date of the samples and the acceptance of the Act by the State of Rajasthan.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the State of Rajasthan had not accepted the repealing or the main act, and the samples in the petitions were taken prior to the Act coming into force.
Final Decision: The misc. petition was dismissed by the court.
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
1. Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C against the order dated 18.08.2011 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Metro) Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No. 715/2011 now this case is transferred to ACJM (Metro) NO. 1, Jodhpur which is registered at Cr. Case No. 864/2012.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the proceedings under the current law was not permissible as the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 came into force on 28.03.2008
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of U.P Delivered by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court (Writ Petition No. 8254/2010 decided on 08.09.2010), relevant portion shown by the petitioner, reads as under:—
“44. In view of the aforesaid crystal clear legal proposition and particular provisions under the FSSA we are in agreement with the arguments advanced by the petitioner-s Counsel that for adulteration of food or misbranding, after coming into force of the provisions of FSSA vide notification dated 29th July, 2010, the authorities can take action only under the FSSA as it postulates an overriding effects over all other food related laws including the PFA Act. In view of the specific provisions under the FSSA, the offences relating to adulteration of food that are governed under the FSSA after July 29, 2010 are to be treated as per the procedures to be followed for drawing and analysis of samples as have been provided for. The provisions of penalties and prosecution have also been provided therein. Therefore, before launching any prosecution against all alleged offence of food adulteration. It is necessary for the concerned authorities to follow the mandatory requirements as provided under Sections 41 and 42 of the FSSA and, therefore, the police have no authority or jurisdiction to investigate the matter under FSSA. Section 42 empowers the Food Safety Officer for inspection of food business, drawing samples and sending them to Food Analyst for analysis. The Designated Officer, after scrutiny of the report of Food Analyst shall decide as to whether the contravention is punishable with imprisonment or fine only and in the case of contravention punishable with imprisonment, he shall send his recommendations to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution. Therefore, invoking Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code in the matter relating to adulteration of food pursuant to the impugned Government order is wholly unjustified and non est. furthermore, it appears that the impugned Government Order has been issued without application of proper mind and examining the matter minutely and thus the State Government travelled beyond the jurisdiction.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that Para 32 of the judgment of the State of U.P has accepted the repealing of the earlier act by virtue of Section 97(1) coming into force on 29.07.2010
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has, however refuted that the basic averment of the petitioner is not in accordance with law as the notification itself was issued only on 25.07.2011 by the State of Rajasthan for final implementation of the Food Safety and Standard Act 2006 and the Rules of 2011 by the Government of India. Learned Public Prosecutor has also stated that once the Act itself was of the year 2010 and was not finally accepted by the State of Rajasthan, therefore, the precedent law shall not apply in the present case. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that even if the Section 97(1) was to come into force with the statutory force was given by the State of Rajasthan, which is subsequent date in the year 2011 on 05.08.2011 whereas the sample were all taken before 05.10.2011
6. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as precedent law cited at Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the State of Rajasthan has not accepted the
