JUDGMENT :

SADHNA RANI (THAKUR), J.

1. Learned counsel for the applicant is present. He has filed the amendment application with affidavit. The same be kept on the record.

2. As per facts of the case, an F.I.R. was registered against the unknown persons that they were manufacturing fake pan masala and selling the same in half of the rate of the original, which is resulting into the loss of the State exchequer, hence an action be taken against them. During investigation, the police apprehended three persons one from outside the unit and the rest two from inside the unit manufacturing the said fake pan masala with various branded empty pouches and raw material manufacturing pan masala etc. The present accused is said to have apprehended from out side the manufacturing place, sitting in a car and from car also some incriminatory material is said to have been found. Vide order dated 27.10.2021 the coordinate bench of this Court enlarged the accused on bail in the same case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957. Later on, Sections 272 and 419 I.P.C. are also said to have been added. The trial court took cognizance against all the accused persons including the present one in the added sections 419 and 272 I.P.C. also. It appears from the record that since the charge sheet was filed in the court the present accused remained absent and after summons, then bailable warrants and at last, non-bailable warrants against the present accused vide order dated 19.04.2022 were issued. The co-accused Amit Dixit is said to have been bailed out in the added Sections 419 and 272 I.P.C. also vide order dated 04.03.2022 of this court.

3. By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. learned counsel for the applicant seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court by staying the further proceedings in Case No. 117543 of 2021 pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in relation to Case Crime No. 799 of 2021 registered at Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 272 I.P.C. and Section 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and the prayer is also made not to arrest the applicant during trial. In support of this application an affidavit has been filed wherein the prayer of quashing the entire proceedings in relation to additional sections 272 and 419 I.P.C. in the same case is also made.

4. Thus, it is clear that in his entire application and affidavit the applicant has not made any prayer to quash the proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957.

5. So far as Section 272 I.P.C. is concerned, it is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that after coming into force of the Food Safety and Standard Act, Sections 272 and 273 I.P.C. with regard to adulteration cases have become redundant. So the charge sheet, cognizance order of all the proceedings under these sections against the applicant are not maintainable.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the court towards Sections 5 of Cr.P.C. which is apposite to mention here:

“5. Saving. Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force.”

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn the attention of the court towards the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2010 SCC Online All. 1708 wherein it is observed that nothing in the penal code shall affect the provisions of any Special Act and when for any act or omission in a particular subject, a special set of rules have been framed, in that situation the provisions of the I.P.C. have to be ignored or over looked.

8. On the basis of this observation it is argued that i