IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. M.P. No. 3161 of 2022

------

Sumit Agarwal

....

....

….

Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Subir Ranjan

....

....

....

Opp. Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.

------

Order No.03 Dated : 13.02.2023

Instant petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution

including the F.I.R. in connection with Sukhdeonagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case

No.284 of 2022 under Sections 188, 269, 270, 272, 328 of the Indian Penal Code

and Sections 30(2)(a) and 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standard Act and Section

51(B) of the Disaster Management Act.

2.

The present case has been lodged by District Food Safety Officer, Ranchi.

As per the prosecution case, as set out in the F.I.R., one truck was seized with huge

quantity of Paan Masala and Tobacco. This petitioner is the owner of truck from

which the prohibited items was seized.

3.

The quashing petition has been filed mainly on the ground that mandatory

provision of Section 42 of the Food Safety and Standard Act under which the

prosecution can be lodged after inspection of the food by food analyst and after

receiving sample from Food Safety Officer. The Designated Officer after scrutiny of

the report of the 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 recommendation within 14 days to

the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution. The Commissioner of

Food Safety after recording his satisfaction under Sub-section 4 can communicate

the decision to the Designated Officer and the concerned Food Safety Officer shall

launch prosecution.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the

procedural formalities have not been observed. It is submitted that notification dated

03.06.2022 has been issued under Sections 30(2)(a) of the Food Safety and Standard

Act. It is further submitted that the other offence under Sections 269, 270, 272, 328

of the Indian Penal Code will not be made out on the basis of facts disclose in the

F.I.R.

5.

With respect to Section 188 of the I.P.C., it is argued that only official

complaint can be the basis for launching prosecution and F.I.R. cannot be instituted

for violation of the prohibitory order. Reliance has been placed on W.P. (Cr.) No.325

of 2021 and Cr.M.P. No.428 of 2021.

6.

Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer. It is submitted that I.P.C. offences will

be made out and the case is still at the stage of investigation. No reply has been

given with regard to Section 42 Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

7.

Section 42 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 provides that the

Food Safety Officer appointed or authorised under Section 37 of the Food Safety

and Standards Act, 2006 can draw the sample of food and send the same for analysis

to the Food Analyst within a specified period of time. The Designated Officer

appointed under Section 36 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 can make a

scrutiny of the report of the Food Analyst and decide whether the prosecution can be

launched and he can send his recommendation within a specified period of time to

the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning such prosecution. On perusal of

Section 42 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, I find that the Food

Safety Officer

can

launch

the

prosecution with

the

recommendation

of

Commissioner of Food Safety. In the instant case, nothing is on record to indicate

that the Investigating Officer was authorized as Food Safety Officer under

Section 37(2) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The State has