Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Tahir S/O Shri Sumer B/C Mev vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:45154) on 11 November, 2025
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2025:RJ-JP:45154]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8177/2019
Tahir S/o Shri Sumer, R/o Dotana, District Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. B. Sharma Ganthola, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 11/11/2025
1. Petitioner has challenged FIR No.679/2019 dated 03.12.2019 registered at Police Station Tijara, District Bhiwari (Rajasthan) for the offence under Sections 420, 270, 272, 273 and 308 IPC.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that bare perusal of FIR would reveal that it has been lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Police in relation to alleged adulterated and unsafe food item which was allegedly being manufactured by the petitioner. At the time of alleged incident during search on 02.12.2019, even the Food Safety Officer was called for taking sample of the adulterated and unsafe food product.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act of 2006') has been enacted by the legislature with the object to deal with all the provisions relating to food and food safety standards which also (Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 04:41:49 PM) (Downloaded on 13/11/2025 at 09:28:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45154] (2 of 13) [CRLMP-8177/2019] lays down the procedure for regulating manufacture, storage, distribution, sale, import as well as to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption and the Act of 2006 also provides for penalties for violation. Section 89 of the Act of 2006 attributes supremacy to the Act of 2006 over the general provisions of IPC and overriding effect has been given to the Act of 2006 by virture of provisions under Section 89 of the Act.
4. It is submitted that as per Section 42 of the Act of 2006, in case any violation is found, then after following the procedure contemplated under Section 42, complaint can be filed preceeded by necessary recommendation by the Commissioner of Food Safety. In the instant case, the FIR has been lodged by Police Officer, who is not authorised under the Act of 2006, even otherwise in view of specific provisions of the Act of 2006, no FIR is maintainable and cognizance, if any, can be taken by the concerned Court only upon lodging of complaint under Section 42 of the Act of 2006. Hence, learned counsel submits that in the instant case, FIR is without jurisdiction and lacks sanctity of law.
He submits that although, during the pendency of the instant petition, after investigation charge-sheet was filed by the Police Authorities and even trial has proceeded further, yet since the root of the trial proceedings is the FIR in question which is without competence and jurisdiction, therefore, all the further proceedings pursuant to the instant FIR are also liable to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are relating to offences of IPC, therefore, FIR can be registered under Section (Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 04:41:49 PM) (Downloaded on 13/11/2025 at 09:28:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45154] (3 of 13) [CRLMP-8177/2019] 154 Cr.P.C. and the Police Authorities have got power to investigate and to file charge-sheet before the Competent Court in respect of offences alleged under the provisions of IPC. He further submits that at this stage, when admittedly charge-sheet has been filed and the trial court has proceeded further, quashing of FIR under Section 482 would not be maintainable in eye of law.
6. Heard and considered.
7. Recently, similar question has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Ram Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1599/2019 decided on 27.10.2025), where after analysing the provisions of the Food Safety Act as well as the corresponding provisions under IPC, it has been held as under:-
"12. It is a matter of record that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 was enacted by the Parliament with an object to consolidate the laws relating to food and to establish the Food Safety and Standards Authorities of India for laying down science based standards for articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale, import and to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption and for remarks connected therewith or incidental therein.
13. Section 89 of the Act of 2006 lays down as under:-
"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 having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act."
14. Bare perusal of Section 89 of the Act of 2006 would explicitly reveal that the legislature in its wisdom has given overriding effect to the provisions of the Act of 2006 over any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
15. Section 3(j) defines Food as under:-
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 04:41:49 PM) (Downloaded on 13/11/2025 at 09:28:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45154] (4 of 13) [CRLMP-8177/2019] ""food" means any substance, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption and includes primary food, to the extent defined in clause (ZK) genetically modified or engineered food or food containing such ingredients, infant food, packaged drinking water, alcoholic drink, chewing gum, and any substance, including water used into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment but does not include any animal feed, live animals unless they are prepared or processed for placing on the market for human consumption, plants prior to harvesting, drugs and medicinal products, cosmetics, narcotic or psychotropic substances:
Provided that the Central Government may declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, any other article as food for the purposes of this Act having regards to its use, nature, substance or quality;"
16. Section 3(q) deals with the definition of Food Safety in the following manner:-
""food safety" means assurance that food is acceptable for human consumption according to its intended use;"
17. Section 3(t) defines Food Safety Officer as under:-
""Food Safety Officer" means an officer appointed under Section 37;"
18. Section 3(u) defines hazard in the following manner:-
""hazard" means a biological, chemical or physical agent in, or condition of, food with the potential to cause an adverse health effect;"
19. Section 3(zc) and 3(zd) deal with the definition of manufacture and manufacturer as under:-
""manufacture" means a process or adoption or any treatment for conversion of ingredients into an article of food, which includes any sub- process, incidental or ancillary to the manufacture of an article of food;
"manufacturer" means a person engaged in the business of manufacturing any article of food for sale and includes any person who obtains such article from another person and packs and labels it for sale or only labels it for such purposes;"
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 04:41:49 PM) (Downloaded on 13/11/2025 at 09:28:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45154] (5 of 13) [CRLMP-8177/2019]
20. Section 3(zs) deals with sample, 3(zu) with standard and 3(zx) with sub-standard in the following manner:-
""sample" means a sample of any article of food taken under the provisions of this Act or any rules and regulations made thereunder;
"standard", in relation to any article of food, means the standards notified by the Food Authority;
"sub-standard" - an article of food shall be deemed to be sub-standard if it does not meet the specified standards but not so as to render the article of food unsafe;"
21. Section 3(zz) defines unsafe food which is being quoted hereunder:-
""unsafe food" means an article of food whose nature, substance or quality is so affected as to render it injurious to health:
(i) by the article itself, or its package thereof, which is composed, whether wholly or in part, or poisonous or deleterious substances; or
(ii) by the article consisting, wholly or in part, or any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal substance or vegetable substance; or
(iii) by virtue of its unhygienic processing or the presence in that article of any harmful substance; or
(iv) by the substitution of any inferior or cheaper substance whether wholly or in part; or
(v) by addition of a substance directly or as an ingredient which is not permitted; or
(vi) by the abstraction, wholly or in part, of any of its constituents; or
(vii) by the article being so coloured, flavoured or coated, powdered or polished, as to damage or conceal the article or to make it appear better or of greater value than it really is; or
(viii) by the presence of any colouring matter or preservatives other than that specified in respect thereof; or
(ix) by the article having been infected or infested with worms, weevils or insects; or (Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 04:41:49 PM) (Downloaded on 13/11/2025 at 09:28:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45154] (6 of 13) [CRLMP-8177/2019]
(x) by virtue of its being prepared, packed or kept under insanitary conditions; or
(xi) by virtue of its being mis-branded or sub-
standard or food containing extraneous matter; or
(xii) by virtue of containing pesticides and other contaminants in excess of quantities specified by regulations."
22. Section 41 & 42 of the Act of 2006 are also relevant and are being quoted hereunder:-
"41. Power of search, seizure, investigation, prosecution and procedure thereof.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 31, the Food Safety Officer may search any place, seize any article of food or adulterant, if there is a reasonable doubt about them being involved in commission of any offence relating to food and shall thereafter inform the Designated Officer of the actions taken by him in writing:
Provided that no search shall be deemed to be irregular by reason only of the fact that witnesses for the search are not inhabitants of the locality in which the place searched is situated.
(2) Save as in this Act otherwise expressly provided, provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) relating to search, seizure, summon, investigation and prosecution, shall apply, as far as may be, to all action taken by the Food Safety Officer under this Act.
42. Procedure for launching prosecution.-
(1) The Food Safety Officer shall be responsible for inspection of food business, drawing samples and sending them to Food Analyst for analysis.
(2) The Food Analyst after receiving the sample from the Food Safety Officer shall analyse the sample and send the analysis report mentioning method of sampling and analysis within fourteen days to Designated Officer with a copy to Commissioner of Food Safety.
(3) The Designated Officer after scrutiny of the report of 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 recommendations within fourteen days to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution.
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 04:41:49 PM) (Downloaded on 13/11/2025 at 09:28:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45154] (7 of 13) [CRLMP-8177/2019] (4) The Commissioner of Food Safety shall, if he so deems fit, decide, within the period prescribed by the Central Government, as per the gravity of offence, whether the matter be referred to,-
(a) a court of ordinary jurisdiction in case of offences punishable with imprisonment for a term up to three years; or
(b) a Special Court in case of offences punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years where such Special Court is established and in case no Special Court is established, such cases shall be tried by a Court of ordinary jurisdiction. (5) The Commissioner of Food Safety shall communicate his decision to the Designated Officer and the concerned Food Safety Officer who shall launch prosecution before courts of ordinary jurisdiction or Special Court, as the case may be; and such communication shall also be sent to the purchaser if the sample was taken under section 40."
23. Sections 58 & 59 deal with contravention and punishment, where the provisions are violated; and are being reproduced hereunder:-
"58. Penalty for contraventions for which no specific penalty is provided.-Whoever contravenes any provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder, for the contravention of which no penalty has been separately provided in this Chapter, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to two lakh rupees.
59. Punishment for unsafe food.-Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable,-
(i) where such failure or contravention does not result in injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(ii) where such failure or contravention results in a non-grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also with fine which may extend to three lakh rupees;
(iii) where such failure or contravention results in a grievous injury, with imprisonment for a (Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 04:41:49 PM) (Downloaded on 13/11/2025 at 09:28:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45154] (8 of 13) [CRLMP-8177/2019] term which may extend to six years and also with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees;
(iv) where such failure or contravention results in death, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and also with fine which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees."
24. Thus, bare reading of the aforesaid provisions would make it clear that the Central Government has enacted the Act of 2006 with the sole objective to bring out a single enactment relating to food and to provide for systematic and scientific development for food processing industry as well as for sampling and analysing of food products and to ensure the compliance of law. Even the procedure for prosecution and penalties has been given in the Act of 2006.
25. Conjoint readings of all the provisions would make it clear that the Act of 2006 is a self- contained code and special legislation for dealing with food laws, standard setting, enforcement agencies, parameters of food standards as well as the penalty and procedure.
26. Section 41 of the Act starts with non- obstante clause and provides for the mode and manner of search, seizure, investigation, prosecution and Section 42 of the Act is explicitly clear, which deals with the meticulous procedure for the purpose of launch of prosecution against the person who has violated the provisions of the Act of 2006.
27. Provisions of Section 42 are unambiguous and would make it abundantly clear that the sample collected during search by the Food Safety Officer shall be sent for analysis to the prescribed authority and on the basis of report of analysis recommendation shall be made by the designated officer defined under Section 3(h) of the Act of 2006. The recommendation of the designated officer shall be considered by the Commissioner of Food Safety appointed under Section 30 of the Act of 2006 and after consideration, a decision shall be taken by him to launch prosecution before Court of ordinary jurisdiction or special Court as the case may be. In the instant case, the impugned FIR has been registered under the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C., which could not have been lodged in the light of the provision of Section 4(2) of Cr.P.C. as (Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 04:41:49 PM) (Downloaded on 13/11/2025 at 09:28:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45154] (9 of 13) [CRLMP-8177/2019] well as Section 42 read with Section 89 of the Act of 2006. This Court has also examined the provisions of Section 272 IPC which solely deals with the adulteration of food or drink intended for sale; and such subject is indisputably covered by the provisions of the Act of 2006. Inclusion of Section 336 in FIR is simply consequential to the alleged violation of Section 272 in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not constitute any independent offence whatsoever.
28. Contents of FIR also do not involve the essential and necessary ingredients of Section 415 IPC which defines cheating, hence, in absence of any specific allegation of inducement as well as undue gain/undue loss on the basis of such inducement, lodging an FIR under Section 420 IPC is not tenable.
29. In the case of M/s Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Limited (supra), the Allahabad High Court was dealing with the similar facts, where allegations were with regard to adulteration in cold drinks and FIR was also lodged under Section 272 & 273 IPC. In the said judgment, the Allahabad High Court has held that the provisions of the Act of 2006 would have an overriding effect on other food laws including the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as well as IPC.
30. The aforesaid judgment has also been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath (supra), where after dealing with the definition of unsafe food, sub-standard, adulterant as well as Sections 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 & 58 and other penalties prescribed in the Act of 2006 and after comparing the same with the provisions of IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has concluded 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 (Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 04:41:49 PM) (Downloaded on 13/11/2025 at 09:28:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45154] (10 of 13) [CRLMP-8177/2019] instrument having effect of virtue of any law other than this Act."
The title of the section indeed indicates that the intention is to give an overriding effect to the FSSA over all 'foodrelated laws'. However, in the main Section, there is no such restriction confined to 'food-related laws', and it is provided that provisions of the FSSA shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. So, the Section indicates that an overriding effect is given to the provisions of the FSSA over any other law. The settled law is that if the main Section is unambiguous, the aid of the title of the Section or its marginal note cannot be taken to interpret the same. Only if it is ambiguous, the title of the section or the marginal note can be looked into to understand the intention of the legislature. Therefore, the main Section clearly gives overriding effect to the provisions of the FSSA over any other law in so far as the law applies to the aspects of food in the field covered by the FSSA. In this case, we are concerned only with Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. When the offences under Section 272 and 273 of the IPC are made out, even the offence under Section 59 of the FSSA will be attracted. In fact, the offence under Section 59 of the FSSA is more stringent.
21. The decision of this Court in Swami Achyutanand Tirth does not deal with this contingency at all. In the case of the State of Maharashtra, the question of the effect of Section 97 FSSA did not arise for consideration of this Court. The Court dealt with simultaneous prosecutions and concluded that there could be simultaneous prosecutions, but conviction and sentence can be only in one. This proposition is based on what is incorporated in Section 26 of the GC Act. We have no manner of doubt that by virtue of Section 89 FSSA, Section 59 will override the provisions of Sections 272 and 273IPC. Therefore, there will (Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 04:41:49 PM) (Downloaded on 13/11/2025 at 09:28:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45154] (11 of 13) [CRLMP-8177/2019] not be any question of simultaneous prosecution under both the statutes.
22. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2012, Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1379 of 2011 succeed, and we set aside the impugned orders. The offences, subject-matter of these appeals, are hereby quashed and set aside with liberty to the authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law if not already initiated. Therefore, the authorities concerned are free to act in accordance with FSSA for offences punishable under Section 59 FSSA. Criminal Appeals Nos. 476-478 of 2012 are dismissed."
31. Meticulous reading of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath (supra) fortifies the legal proposition that provisions of Section 89 of the Act of 2006 have overriding effect over the provisions of Section 272 & 273 IPC in so far as the law of agency of food in the field covered by the Act of 2006. In view of the express non-obstante clause embodied in Section 89 of the Act, it is evident that matters relating to offences of adulteration, misbranding, or sub- standard food, the field stands occupied by the Act of 2006. Consequently, once the alleged act falls within the ambit of the Act of 2006, prosecution under the general provisions of IPC would be impermissible.
32. In the light of foregoing discussion, it is absolutely clear that the respondent- police authorities have committed serious error of law and jurisdiction by invoking the provisions of IPC and Cr.P.C. for lodging FIR in the instant case. The matter squarely falls within the regulatory and penal framework of the Act of 2006, which provides a complete and exclusive mechanism for initiation of prosecution through the Designated Officer and Food Safety Commissioner under Section 41 & 42 of the Act. The registration of the FIR by the Police, therefore, not only reflects lack of jurisdiction but also contravenes the mandate of Section 89 of the Act. Such FIR, which is directly against the provisions of the Act of 2006, more particularly when even the analysis report of the safety and standard report dated 05.09.2018 does not suggest any adulteration so as to constitute offence under the Act of 2006, hence, prosecution pursuant to such FIR would certainly amount to miscarriage of (Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 04:41:49 PM) (Downloaded on 13/11/2025 at 09:28:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45154] (12 of 13) [CRLMP-8177/2019] justice to the petitioner as well as abuse of process of law."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that offence of Section 308 as alleged in the FIR is simply consequential of alleged offence under Sections 270, 272, 273 IPC and the FIR in question is absolutely silent with regard to the necessary ingredients of cheating as defined under Section 415 IPC, therefore, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted under Section 420 IPC also. Bare examination of the FIR does not reflect any ingredient whatsoever such as dishonest intention of the petitioner right from the inception and any inducement on his part so as to influence any other person for purchasing the alleged food product which may cause any undue gain or loss to anybody. Hence, offence under Section 420 IPC is also not made out against the petitioner.
9. In the case of Mukesh & Ors. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP (Crl.) No.12354/2024 decided on 29.11.2024), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in cases of abuse of process of law proceeding can be quashed even after framing of charge, hence, in view of above objection raised by learned Public Prosecutor does not sustain.
10. In the light of above, where similar question has already been decided by this Court in the case of Ram Singh (Supra), this Court deems it just and proper to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and FIR No.679/2019 registered at Police Station Tijara, District Bhiwari (Rajasthan) against the petitioner is hereby quashed alongwith all subsequent proceedings.
11. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 04:41:49 PM) (Downloaded on 13/11/2025 at 09:28:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45154] (13 of 13) [CRLMP-8177/2019]
12. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /05 (Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 04:41:49 PM) (Downloaded on 13/11/2025 at 09:28:33 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)