Prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act does not require a prior complaint for FIR; misbranding entails legal liability under both the IPC and Food Safety Act.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding along with FIR in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No.221 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No.1794 of 2023 including the order dated 15.03.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 52, 59 and 63 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and ordered for issuance of summons against the petitioners.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were running an illegal factory and godown for preparing inedible oil from Mahua seeds and were misbranding the same as mustard oil of reputed brands in violation of the rules of FSSAI. The Food Safety Officer of Godda conducted a raid on the godown and found a truck loaded with branded mustard oil tins in which Molasses (Gud) was stored and the petitioners by impersonating as the purchaser of branded mustard oils were selling the said inedible oil prepared from Mahua seeds as branded mustard oil to the retail sellers in the market under the Mahagama Police Station. The petitioners could not produce any license for manufacturing of oil, police seized the truck along with tins of molasses loaded upon it and on the basis of the information, Food Safety Officer seized the truck loaded with tins containing molasses and kept the same within the premises of Mahagama Police Station for safety.

4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Mahagama P.S. Case No.221 of 2022 and took up investigation of the case, after completion of investigation, police found the allegations against the petitioners of having committed the offences punishable under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 52, 59 and 63 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 to be true and submitted charge sheet and basing upon the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda has taken cognizance of all the offences in respect of which charge sheet has submitted and passed summoning order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of co- ordinate bench of this Court in the case ofNiranjan Kumar Sah vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others inW.P.(Cr.) No.597 of 2022 dated 03.04.2023 and submits that the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the facts of that case where during the inspection, the Food Safety Officer found that there was misbranding of food products like Chana, Chana Dal, Besan, Arhar Dal and a huge truck of such items was found and the articles seized in that case were already released to the accused person of that case and drawing attention of the Court to Section 42 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 it was submitted that that only a competent person can launch a prosecution by a complaint, not by the FIR and relying upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case ofPepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Food Inspector and Another reported in2010 SCC OnLine ALL 1708, wherein it was opined by the Allahabad High Court that in view of the specific provisions in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the offences relating to adulteration of food that are governed under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 after 29th July, 2010 are to be treated as per the procedures to be followed