SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1030

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE URMILA SACHIN JOSHI- PHALKEHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NANDESH SHANKARRAO DESHPANDE
MOHAMMED FIROZ MOHAMMED SADDIK PUNJANI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO PUSAD CITY PS AND DIST YAVATMAL – Respondent
APL/1101/2025



2026:BHC-NAG:660-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO. 1101/2025

1. Mohammed Firoz Mohammed Saddik Punjani, Aged 42 years, Occ – business, R/o. Meman Colony, Karanja, Tq. Karanja Distt. Washim ... APPLICANT ...VERSUS…

1. State Of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Pusad City Police Station, Pusad and Distt. Yavatmal.

2. Food Safety Officer, Food and Drug Administration (M.S.) Yavatmal.

...NON-APPLICANTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Ajay S. Mohta, Advocate for applicant Ms. M. J. Khan, APP for non-applicant/State ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 18 th DECEMBER, 2025.

PRONOUNCED ON : 14 th JANUARY, 2026 .

JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)

Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of Final Report/Chargesheet no. 498 of 2025 dated 28.08.2024, arising out of First Information Report, registered as crime no. 43/2024 dated 05.02.2024, lodged with Police Station Pusad, District Yavatmal, for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 272, 273 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), as also, for offences punishable under Sections 26(2)(i), 27(2)(e), 30(2)(a) and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Rules, 2011.

3. As per the First Information Report, on 05.02.2024, Non- applicant No. 2, who is a Food Safety Officer, was informed by the Police Station Officer, Pusad, that one Sheikh Javed Sheikh Habib was found transporting prohibited food articles, namely scented tobacco, in a Mahindra Bolero vehicle. The said prohibited articles, amounting to Rs. 15,66,315/- were seized. Upon inquiry, Sheikh Javed Sheikh Habib disclosed that he was working as a driver and that he had been instructed by one Sheikh Shoaib Shaikh Khurshid Lala (the present applicant) to deliver the said articles to one Mohammed Firoz Mohammad Saddik Punjani.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, Non-applicant No. 1/Police Station, Pusad, filed a charge-sheet/final report in the matter. Being aggrieved by the registration of the First Information Report and the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet/final report, the applicant has preferred the present application challenging the averments made therein.

5. We have heard Mr. Ajay S. Mohta, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Mr. M. J. Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for Non-applicant No. 1/State.

6. The Learned Counsel for the applicant has opposed the averments made in the First Information Report. He states that the present applicant is not involved in the alleged crime and that his name has surfaced solely on the basis of an oral disclosure made by Sheikh Javed Sheikh Habib. It is also submitted that the present applicant is not arrayed as an accused in the concerned First Information Report.

7. He further states that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 along with the Rules and Regulations, 2011 is a special enactment and therefore, would override the general law i.e. IPC. It is contended that the complainant, in collusion with the police machinery, has deliberately invoked offences under IPC.

8. Learned counsel further submits that by no stretch of imagination can mere possession or transportation of scented tobacco attract the offences punishable under Sections 273 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code. To invoke Section 328 of the IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that the substance in question was poison or any stupefying, intoxicating, or unwholesome drug, that the accused administered or caused the same to be administered t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top