Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 13518
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J
Rajkumar Tinkar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 2159/2012
Ramesh Saboo,A.G.
The court ruled that non-cognizable offences under IPC cannot be investigated without magistrate permission, and that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Food Safety and Standards Act override IPC provisions, preventing simultaneous prosecution.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 272, 273 - Quashing of FIR and cognizance order - The applicant, a Quality Assurance Manager, challenged the FIR and cognizance taken for alleged food adulteration, arguing that the offences are non-cognizable and that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Food Safety and Standards Act override IPC provisions. The court found no permission for police investigation and ruled that simultaneous prosecution under both statutes is impermissible. (Paras 1, 4, 7, 9)
(B) Legal Principles - Non-cognizable offences - The court emphasized that police cannot investigate non-cognizable offences without magistrate permission, as per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
(C) Statutory Overriding - The court reiterated that the provisions of the PFA Act and FSSA take precedence over IPC sections 272 and 273, preventing dual prosecution. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was accused of food adulteration based on a complaint regarding a contaminated drink sold by a supplier. The FIR was registered without magistrate permission.
Findings of Court:
The FIR and cognizance order were quashed due to lack of proper procedure and the applicability of special food safety laws.
Issues: Whether the police could investigate non-cognizable offences without magistrate permission and the applicability of the PFA Act and FSSA over IPC provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lack of magistrate permission invalidated the investigation and that the special food safety laws supersede IPC provisions for food adulteration.
Result: Petition allowed.
1. This is an Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR being no.107 dated 20.04.2010 lodged at Jaora Police Station, Dist Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh and for quashing the Final Report/Chargesheet/Challan being no. 20/019 dated 26.01.2011 filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaora, Dist - Ratlam, M.P. and for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 20.04.2011 whereby and where under the JMFC has taken cognizance u/s - 272/273/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") in Criminal Case No. 546/2011 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaora, Dist - Ratlam, M.P.
2. The Applicant is the Quality Assurance Manager of Hindustan Coca- Cola Beverages Private Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Company"), a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 and engaged inter alia in the operation relating to the manufacture, packaging, sale and distribution of Sweetened Carbonated water, Carbonated water, Packaged Drinking Water, Fruit based drinks etc. under various brand names such as Coca-Cola, Thums Up, Limca, Sprite, Fanta, Kinley etc. The applicant has been nominated by the Company under Sec- 17(2) of Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "PFA Act") and is based at the Plant/Factory of the Company situated at Plot No. 169175 AKVN, Industrial Area, Pillukhedi, Tehsil- Narsinghgarh, Rajgarh, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh- 465667.
3. The Applicant states that it seems that one Mr. Harish Bhati filed a complaint in Jaora Police Station Dist. Ratlam, on 20th April, 2010 alleging interalia as follows:
- (a) He runs a tea stall in the name of Aashish Tea Stall, at which he sells tea, cold drinks and other small miscellaneous items.
- (b) About 10-12 days back he purchased a crate of "Limca 200 ml" from Kimat Cold Drinks, the supplier for Coca-Cola company in Jaora.
- (c) The customer, whose name and address he could not provide, returned one bottle, which was in sealed condition, for there being many dust particles in the liquid contained in the bottle.
- (d) The said Mr. Bhati had spoken to the Proprietor of Kimat Cold- drinks about this and shown the bottle to the proprietor of Kimat Cold drinks, who told the said Mr. Bhati, to send the sealed bottle to the Company and also spoke to the Company.
- (e) The said bottle of Limca was being produced with the Application on which after the date 09-03-10 the words BN0968-RS-8-CONTAIN-SNO- FRUIT are printed. Even on the crown of the bottle which is sealed, information is printed in very small letters. The words Limca and FPO 1142 are clearly visible on the crown.
- (f) According to the said Mr. Bhati such a drink could be harmful to health, the quality and production management of the company sent the liquid drink item for sale in the market and was distributed by Kimat cold Drinks.
- Hence appropriate action be taken against them from the point of view of public health.
4. It is argued that after the offences were registered under Section 272, 273 of IPC, which are non-cognizable offences, therefore, the police could not have investigated the matter without permission of the Magistrate. As per the provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. It is also argued that the registration of FIR and cognizance of offences under Section 272 and 273 of IPC despite enactment of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short "PFA Act")
and also the Food Safety and Standards Act (in short "FSSA") is illegal. It is argued that the provisions of special enactment specially by virtue of Section 89 of FSSA, Section 59 of FSSA will override the provisions of Section 272 & 273 of IPC. Therefore, there will not be any question of simultaneous prosecution under both the statutes. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Cr.A. No.472/2012 dated 21/2/2024 in the case of Ramnath vs. State of U.P. an
