The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 exclusively governs food adulteration matters, rendering prosecution under the IPC concurrent provisions impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. These criminal miscellaneous petitions are arising out of common facts and against the same FIR raising identical points, hence, with the consent of the parties, at the stage of deciding application for stay vacation, all the petitions were heard together and are being decided finally by the instant common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts stated in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1599/2019 are being taken into consideration.

3. The criminal misc. petition has been filed with a prayer to quash and set aside FIR No.762/2018 registered with the Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur for the alleged offences under Section 420 , 272 & 336 of IPC as well as Section 58 & 59 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

4. It is contended that the impugned FIR No.762/2018 has been lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Police Station Bayana on 03.09.2018 alleging therein that the accused-petitioners were found to be indulged in the process of adulteration of milk by blending caustic soda and other chemicals in one of the factory situated in RICCO industrial area. It has also been stated in the FIR that during search even the Food Safety Officer, Bharatpur was called, who also took sample of the milk and after sealing the same, the sample was also sent for examination. The FIR has been lodged under Section 420 , 272 & 336 of IPC as well as Section 58 & 59 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the FIR has submitted that FIR is without authority as well as without jurisdiction, as the allegations levelled in the FIR principally deal with alleged adulteration in milk, which is essentially a food product as defined under Section 3 (j) of the Act of 2006. Learned counsel further submits that Section 41 of the Act of 2006 deals with power of search, seizure, investigation, prosecution and procedure thereof and further Section 42 deals with the procedure for launching prosecution. While making such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner indicated that of the Act of 2006 makes it abundantly clear that the sample of alleged adulterated food shall be collected by the Food Safety Officer and the same shall be sent for further analysis to the designated officer within a period of 14 days with a copy to the Commissioner of Food Safety. Thereafter, on the basis of report, designated officer shall scrutinize as to whether any provision of the Act has been contravened or not; and if such contravention is punishable with imprisonment or with fine only, and after making such scrutiny, he shall submit his recommendation within a period of 14 days to the Commission of Food Safety for grant of sanction for prosecution. Learned counsel also submits that thereafter decision shall be taken by the Commissioner of Food Safety, who shall direct the competent authority to launch prosecution before the appropriate Court and such communication shall also be sent to the purchaser, if any.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further indicates that Section 89 of the Act of 2006 confers overriding effect to the provisions of Act of 2006 over any other law for the time being in force in respect of subjects which are included in the Act of 2006. Learned counsel also refers the provisions of Section 4 (2) of Cr.P.C. so as to emphasize that even the provisions of Cr.P.C. makes it absolutely clear that the offences relating to any special law shall be dealt with by the provisions of the Statute dealing with such special law and shall be investig