Prosecution under IPC provisions for food adulteration is barred when specific provisions under the Food Safety Act apply, preventing simultaneous charges.

Order

19/11/2025

1. A prayer has been made for quashing of the impugned FIR No.160/2022 registered with the Police Station Sadar Dholpur, District Dholpur for the offences under Sections 272, 273 & 420 IPC along with Sections 26 (2)(i) and 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short “the Act of 2006”) and the entire proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid FIR was registered by the Police Station Sadar Dholpur against the petitioner for the above stated offences with the allegation that when certain food articles were seized from the petitioner and samples of the same were taken for testing, the seized articles were found to be adulterated and incorrectly branded. Learned counsel submits that treating the aforesaid act of the petitioner as an offence punishable under various provisions of the IPC and the Act of 2006, not only an FIR was registered, but the charge-sheet has also been submitted against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that by virtue of Section 89 read with Section 59 (i) of the Act of 2006, an FIR cannot be registered in such like matters on the grounds that these sections under the Act of 2006, being specific law, have an overriding effect over the general law. Learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.472/2012) decided on 21.02.2024, as well as in the case of Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2024(1) FAC 501 has taken a similar view, keeping in mind that in case an offence under Section 59 (i) of the Act of 2006 has been made out, there cannot be a simultaneous prosecution of the accused under Sections 272, 273 & 420 IPC. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the entire proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR are liable to be quashed and set-aside.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are relating to the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, so an FIR can be registered and the Police has power to investigate the matter and submit the charge-sheet before the court of law. Therefore, no illegality has been caused by the Investigating Agency while registering the aforesaid FIR and submitting the charge-sheet against the petitioner for the above stated offence. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. The issue involved in this petition is no more res integra as the same has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath (supra) and subsequently in the case of Sushil Kumar Gupta (supra).

6. In the case of Sushil Kumar Gupta (supra), two questions were formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court for its consideration-:

“(I) Whether the police constituted under the Police Act, not being a Food Safety Officer under the said Act, namely, the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 is empowered to investigate into the case; and (II) Whether a First Information Report can be registered under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC respectively without an order of Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC regard being had to the fact that the offence under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC respectively are non- cognizable in nature.”

7. The aforesaid questions were answered by the Hon’ble Apex Court by recording the following observations in Paras 6 to 13, which reads as under:-

“6. The second question also came to be answered in the