Under Section 89 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, the Act's provisions (specifically Section 59) override Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC, precluding simultaneous prosecution under both statutes for offences concerning unsafe food.

O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is at the instance of an original accused, charged with the offences punishable under Sections 272, 273, 420 read with Section 120B of the I.P.C. and is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.8.2023 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in C.R.R. No. 2795 of 2017 by which the High Court declined to quash the proceedings arising from the First Information Report (FIR) No. 58/2017 registered at Section B Jorabagan Police Station, Calcutta.

3. It appears that although the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 of the CrPC was invoked for the purposes of quashing of the criminal proceedings, yet the same came to be registered as Criminal Revision Application. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant pointed out that this is the practice prevailing in the High Court at Calcutta. Be that as it may. We are only concerned with the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the High Court.

4. Two questions fell for the consideration of the High Court while deciding the Criminal Revision Application filed by the Appellant herein:-

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 I.P.C. 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 I.P.C. respectively are non-cognizable in nature.

5. The High Court answered the first question in the affirmative. The High Court took the view that the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 (for short, ‘the Act, 2006’) would not take away the statutory power of the police to investigate into the offences enumerated above.

6. The second question also came to be answered in the affirmative. The High Court took the view that since Section 420 of the I.P.C. has also been invoked and the same being a cognizable offence, the police can investigate the FIR, even if some of the offences are non-cognizable offences.

7. The High Court ultimately rejected the revision application and thereby declined to quash the FIR.

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order.

9. The issues raised in the present appeal are no longer res integra after the decision of this Court in the case of “Ram Nath vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.”, Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2012 dated 21.2.2024. This Court took the view that very exhaustive, substantive and procedural provisions in the 2006 Act have been provided for dealing with the offences concerning unsafe food. The Court looked into Section 89 of the Act, 2006 which provides for an overriding effect of the Act, 2006 over all other food related laws. The Court also looked into Section 59 of the Act, 2006.

10. The final conclusion drawn in Ram Nath (supra) is as under:-

“20. Thus, there are very exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions in the FSSA for dealing with offences concerning unsafe food. In this context, we must consider the effect of Section 89 of the FSSA. Section 89 reads thus:

“89.Overriding effect of this Act over all other food related laws.—The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument hav