Apurva Vinaykanth Chavda vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 July, 2025

[Cites 30, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Apurva Vinaykanth Chavda vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 July, 2025

Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy

 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

       CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 4203 OF 2025,
              4187 of 2025 & 4198 of 2025

COMMON ORDER :

These Criminal Petitions, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short „the BNSS‟), have been filed by various accused in Crime No.470 of 2024 of Tirupati East Police Station to grant bail to them in the said crime.

Petitioner in Criminal Petition No.4203 of 2025 is A.5; petitioner in Criminal Petition No.4187 of 2025 in A.3 and the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.4198 of 2025 is A.4, in the aforesaid crime.

2. Basing on a report dated 25.09.2024 lodged by the General Manager (Procurement), T.T. Devasthanams, Tirupati („the informant‟), the aforesaid crime was registered for the offences under Sections 274, 275, 316 (5), 318 (3), 318 (4), 61 (2) and 299 read with 49 read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „BNS‟) and Sections 51 and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act, 2006), by the Sub 2 Inspector of Police, East police station, Tirupati, against M/s.A.R.Dairy Foods Private Limited, Dindigal, Tamilnadu and others.

3. The allegations in the report dated 25.09.2024 lodged by the informant, in brief, are as follows.

In view of various complaints received from pilgrims on the quality of Laddu Prasadam, the cow ghee procurement process and the quality issues were reviewed in depth, wherein several issues affecting the quality of Laddu Prasadams, were noticed. TTD warned all the suppliers to improve quality of ghee supplied that the sub-standard stocks would be tested outside labs for adulteration and the firm would be blacklisted with suitable penalties if the tests indicate adulteration. Pursuant to the same, all other firms improved the quality of ghee, except M/s. A.R. Dairy Foods Private Limited, Dindigal, Tamilnadu. Supply order was issued in favour of the said firm on 15.05.2024 for supply of 10 lakhs KGs of cow ghee within 1500 KMs radius from Tirumala, and its price of Rs.319.80 ps appears to be unviable and 3 unreasonable for supplying pure ghee. The company supplied four tankers of ghee on 12.06.2024, 20.06.2024, 25.06.2024 and 04.07.2024 respectively, and the same were accepted with the earlier procedure of testing which does not include adulteration testing. Thereafter, a decision was taken to utilize services of outside NABL accredited lab for testing adulteration by tying up with NDDB, CALF Lab, Anand, Gujarat for enforcing quality as per tender conditions, which is for the first time in the TTD. Accordingly, samples were collected from the aforesaid four tankers and sent to NDDB CALF Limited, Anand, confidentially for testing the quality. The testing reports were received on 16.07.2024 and 23.07.2024, wherein it was noticed that there is high level of adulteration of ghee supplied. According to the report, all the samples have vegetable and animal fat based adulterants including LARD. Show-cause notices were issued to the said company and a reply was submitted by the said company to the said show-cause notice. TTD purchases ghee for preparation of Swamivari Laddu and other Prasadams as per the Dittam, and expect values, 4 quality and authenticity, and in view of the above, TTD was disheartened to discover that the ghee supplied by the said company recently did not meet the expected standards. Quality of ghee affects both health and religious sentiments and beliefs of the devotees of Lord Sri Venkateswara. TTD was made to believe by the company that strict quality control measures were maintained by it to ensure that their products meet safety and quality standards, but the results of the samples which were tested were otherwise. The S Value for the sample, as per the report dated 12.07.2024 given by the NDDB Calf Limited, Gujarat is substantially low as compared to the Standard S Value limits as per the method. The company violated the agreement clauses and committed cheating by adulterating ghee. It quoted lowest price for cow ghee and thereby induced TTD to award the Order for 10 lakhs KGs of ghee with them, and it supplied the sub-standard and adulterated ghee to have wrongful gain and deceived TTD and the devotees. It also committed breach of trust due to failure of supply of pure cow ghee by violating the promise made by it as per the agreement terms and conditions, 5 and also committed the offences under the FSS Act 2006. The adulteration of ghee is nothing but a criminal conspiracy between the supplier and some vested interests. In view of the spread of the news all over India, there are lot of debates and dialogue war between different groups of media which is likely to disturb public tranquility. The ghee was supplied by the supplier without observing the safety standards and liability of the manufacturer and hence by supplying the same, the supplier violated penal Sections 51 and 59 of the FSS Act, 2006. Hence, it was requested to conduct investigation and take appropriation action as per law.

4. Thereafter, a Special Investigation Team was appointed by the State Government on 26.9.2025 for conducting investigation into the said crime, Thereafter, pursuant to the Order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, a five-member Special Investigation Team was constituted under the supervision of the Director, Central Bural of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a deeper probe.

5. During the course of investigation, the petitioners, who are the C.E.O. and Directors, of M/s. Sri Vyshnavi Dairy Specialties Private Limited(A.6), were arrested on 09.02.2025 and got remanded to judicial remand. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed by the Investigation Officer, Special Investigation Team /Additional Superintendent of Police (Admn.), Tirupati.

6. The allegations in the charge sheet, inter alia, are as follows.

(a) A.6 has no capacity in respect of milk procurement, production of butter and ghee to meet the TTD Tender specifications and A.6 did not manufacture ghee in bulk except producing the minimal quantity for local requirement, and as a part of conspiracy, A.5 manipulated the documents and submitted false and fabricated documents to the TTD for participating in the TTD tenders. A.6 got 10 TTD ghee tenders and supplied 33,93,792 Kgs of ghee to the TTD and received commission from A.7 till A.3 and A.4 took over A.6 7 company. It is further alleged that after taking over A.6 company by A.3 and A.4, during January, 2024, A.6 participated in TTD tender by submitting false and fabricated documents without having capacity to meet the TTD tender requirements and got the tender ID No.700539 for supply 5.00 lakhs Kgs of cow ghee through tankers and supplied 3,18,750 KGs of ghee through ghee tankers. It is further alleged that A.7 supplied cow ghee through big tankers of about 30,000 KG capacity and Tins to A.6, which in turn supplied the same through small tankers of about 17,000 Kg capacity and Tins (15 kg) to TTD in the aforesaid 10 tenders. It is further alleged that as per the lab test reports, samples of ghee which were examined at CFTRI do not conform the specifications of Food Safety Standard Regulation 2.1.8, and as the test results of all the 4 samples in respect of test for B- Sitosterol are positive, the ghee supplied by A.7, A.6 and M/s. Premier Agri Foods Private Limited was found adulterated. It is further alleged that A.7 was allowed to continue its supply of ghee to TTD till October, 2022, and since TTD disqualified A.7 to participate in TTD ghee 8 tenders, A.3 and A.4 supplied ghee to TTD through other dairies i.e. A.6 and another, under 1500 KM category which was reintroduced by the TTD during 2022.

(b) It is further alleged that A.5 informed A.3 that A.2, Managing Director of A.1 company, accepted for the above proposal for supplying of ghee to TTD in his company name for which A.3 informed A.5 to go ahead with the proposal, and in pursuance of the conspiracy, on 23.04.2023, A.5 through Whatsapp shared the details of list of documents required to be uploaded for participating in TTD ghee tender under 1500 KM category to A.2, and in response to the above communication, A.2 asked for the Model for declaration under Annexure-A & B. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that in pursuance of the abovesaid conspiracy, on 13.05.2023, A.5 created a g- mail id „[email protected]‟ in the name of A.1 by giving his credentials and mobile number, for the purpose of participating in TTD ghee tender. It is alleged that as per the instructions of A.5, certain documents of A.1 were prepared and sent to A.5 with an intent to participate in TTD ghee tender.

(c) A.5, with the assistance of his staff, prepared false and fabricated documents pertaining to A.1 i.e. FSSAI License (Form-C), FSSAI Annual Returns for 2022- 23, procurement of milk and production details of ghee and butter to meet the tender conditions of TTD ghee tender under 1,500 KMs and National Category, and the said documents were forwarded through mail to Smt. G.Velvizhi, Internal Auditor, A.1 and copy was marked to A.2, the Managing Director of A.1 with instructions to obtain the signatures of Raju Rajasekaran (A.2) and sent both soft and hard copies to him for participating in TTD tenders. It is alleged that A.5, in turn, through his staff, forwarded the above false and fabricated documents through mail to Shri P.P.Srinivasan with instructions to upload the documents in TTD e-tender portal.

(d) It is further alleged that A.5 and A.8 instructed staff of A.6 to delete Whatsapp chat in their mobile phones and also instructed to tell that the ghee in 8 tankers supplied to TTD through A.1 was manufactured in A.6 itself and not to reveal the name of A.7 to FSSAI officials, and accordingly the staff of A.6 deleted Whatsapp 10 chats and did not reveal the name of A.7, and A.5 destroyed his mobile and laptop which were having crucial information in order to cover up misdeeds. It is alleged that the role of A.5 and A.8 was not only just limited to supply of adulterated ghee, but also deeply involvement in falsification of records to show ghee production and enhanced milk procurement, and they created false records to mislead authorities to believe that A.6 was manufacturing cow ghee. It is alleged that in furtherance of conspiracy with A.3 and A.4, A.5 and A.6 played a pivotal role in resupplying the adulterated ghee in rejected four ghee tankers of A.1 to TTD in the supply orders of A.6, and after issue of adulterated ghee supplied to TTD came to light, in anticipation of FSSAI inspection to A.6, they created fake invoices in favour of Sri Krishna Oil Industries, Kolkata and Sun Alkalies, Sitarampur, West Bengal to substantiate their false claim of disposal of ghee in rejected four tankers to a soap factory. It is alleged that they sold the left over ghee and butter available in A.6 vide said invoices to remove the traces of the said adulterated ghee and burnt the carton boxes of 11 butter in the name of A.7 in the premises of A.6 to screen evidence. It is alleged that this deliberate misrepresentation of production process and resupplying of adulterated ghee into TTD supply chain undermined public trust, breached faith and violated tender conditions, hurt the religious sentiments of devotees. A.5 not only ignored internal lab findings of A.1 with regard to adulteration, but also actively directed employees of A.6 to manipulate lab reports to meet the TTD parameters, further solidifying his role in these unethical activities, and that the systematic collusion and relabeling efforts by A.5 were integral to the fraudulent scheme hatched along with his counterparts in the conspiracy and fraud. The dishonest and fraudulent acts among A.5, A.2, A.3, A.4 and A.8, resulted in wrongful gain to themselves and corresponding loss to TTD. It is alleged that A.5 paid undue advantage (bribes) to TTD officials A.9 and A.10 to secure and retain business, expedite bill payments and influence tender process.

(e) It is alleged that the aforesaid acts of A.5, A.8 and A.6 constitute offences of criminal conspiracy, act done by 12 several persons in furtherance of common intention, causing disappearance of evidence, sale/supply of noxious food i.e. ghee, criminal breach of trust, cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss caused to TTD, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, preparation of false and fabricated documents, deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings and sentiments of devotees, induced public servant by giving undue advantage to perform improperly public duty, and accordingly, A.5 committed the offences punishable under Sections 61 (2), 238, 274, 275, 316 (5), 318 (3), 318 (4), 299, 336 (3), 340 (2), 49 read with 3 (5) of the BNS & Section 120B, 201, 271, 273, 409, 418, 420, 468, 471, 295A, 109 read with 34 IPC and 120 B IPC & 61 (2) of the BNS and Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and substantive offences punishable under Sections 8 and 10 of the Act.

7. As regards A.3 and A.4, it is alleged that A.3 and A.4, as Directors of A.7 and A.6 companies, master- 13 mined a large scale conspiracy to supply adulterated ghee to the TTD; that no milk was procured/purchased at any point of time by A.7 during the period of supply of ghee to TTD through A.6 and A.1; that on the instructions of A.3 and A.4, A.14 created fake milk purchase record, fake milk sale record and fake cream sale records as if A.7 purchased milk and produced milk products like cream. It is further alleged that A.3 and A.4, in criminal conspiracy with A.12 and A.13, prepared adulterated/noxious ghee by mixing Refined Palm Oil, Refined Palm Oil and Refined Palmolein procured through A.11 and M/s. Harsh Trading Company, with minimal quantity of ghee along with chemicals viz. Beta-Carotene, Acetic Acid Ester, Lactic Acid Food Grade, Monoglyceride, Ghee flavor and other adulterants to adjust the lab test values and to maintain aroma in adulterated ghee in A.7; that A.6 and A.1 were used as front companies to secure TTD ghee tenders after A.3 and A.4 repeatedly failed to meet eligibility conditions of TTD ghee tenders through their company A.7. It is further alleged that during FYs 2022-23, 2023-24 and up to September, 2024, A.3 and 14 A.4 diverted 57,56,517.50 Kgs of refined palm oil, palm kernel oil and palmolein which were shown as fake sales from M/s. Harsh Trading company and A.1 and used the same for preparation of adulterated ghee in their company A.7 and sold the adulterated ghee to A.6. It is further alleged that A.12, who is Proprietor of M/s. Shree Mohan Hari Trading, in conspiracy with A.3 and A.4, make fake transactions of sale/purchase of cream in 2021-22 in order to show that as if A.7 purchased milk and produced cream and in order to inflate turn over. It is further alleged that A.14, being Accountant of A.7, in conspiracy with A.3 and A.4, with a dishonest intention, showed false sale of milk in cash from A.7 to one Ravindra Dairy, Budhana and also on the family members of Sri Ravindra Kumar. It is further alleged that A.15, in criminal conspiracy with A.3 and A.4, raised invoices for fake sale of ghee without there being any actual sale of ghee from his four firms in favour of A.7. It is further alleged that A.3, A.4 and A.16 deliberately destroyed their old mobile phones and purchased new mobile phones in order to cover up their misdeeds, and A.3 and A.4 paid undue 15 pecuniary advantages on behalf of their companies A.7 and A.6, to public servants i.e. employees of TTD i.e. A.9 and A.10, for smooth running of their fraudulent activities; that by the fraudulent acts, A.3 and A.4 earned crores of rupees through their company A.7 by violating conditions of legal contract agreement executed with TTD towards supply of Agmark Special Grade cow ghee and thereby misappropriated the amount received by them through the said adulterated ghee supplied to TTD and authorized illicit financial transactions organized in such a way to sustain their fraudulent activities, and the aforesaid criminal acts resulted in defrauding of a revered religious institution and breached public faith and trust, and the quality of sacred prasadams of Lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy was compromised which deeply hurts religious sentiments of devotees. Therefore, the acts of the petitioners constitute offences of criminal conspiracy, acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, causing disappearance of evidence, adulteration of ghee intended for sale, sale of noxious food i.e. ghee, criminal breach of trust, cheating with 16 knowledge that wrongful loss caused to TTD, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings and sentiments of devotees of Lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy.

8. Learned senior counsel Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.4203 of 2025-A.5 submits that the Officers have not followed the procedure contemplated under the FSS Act, 2006, in lifting the samples and there is non-compliance of Sections 42 and 47 of the Act. The learned senior counsel further submits that the Special Investigation Team conducted the investigation and also filed charge sheet. He submits that the petitioner/A.5 was arrested on 09.02.2025 and since then he has been languishing in jail. He further submits that the petitioner /A.5 is the CEO of A.6-company and he is not the person who supplied ghee directly to the TTD; even according to the prosecution, there was supply of ghee to A.R. Dairy Food Private Limited, and from there, ghee was supplied to the TTD.

The learned senior counsel further submits that ghee was supplied to the TTD on 09.07.2024 and 12.07.2024 and the Food Inspectors are alleged to have lifted the sample from two tankers on those days. According to him, no notice has been served on the petitioner/A.5, and in pursuant to the analysis, an opportunity has not been given to the petitioner/A.5 so as to enable him to get it analyzed in a Central Food Laboratory. He further submits that the petitioner/A.5 has got fixed abode, and the question of threatening the witnesses or tampering the evidence by the petitioner would not arise since charge sheet has already been filed. He submits that all the offences that are alleged as against the petitioner/A.5 are punishable up to 7 years imprisonment, except the offence punishable under Section 316 (5) of the BNS. According to him, the said provision would not be applicable to the petitioner/A.5 for the reason that he is not public servant as per the definition. Hence, he prays to enlarge the petitioner/A.5 on bail.

9. Sri S.Sriram, learned senior counsel, appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.4187 of 2025 and 4198 of 2025/A.3 and A.4, concurred with the submissions made by the learned senior counsel Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, and further submitted that Section 89 of the FSS Act, 2006 has over- riding effect over the provisions of the BNS, and in such circumstances, the provisions under the FSS Act, 2006 and the BNS cannot go together. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision in Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh & others1, and submitted that the provisions under Sections 274 and 275 of the BNS are not maintainable as the FSS Act, 2006 is a self-contained Act and any violation under the said Act is made punishable under the same Act.

The learned senior counsel further submitted that pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid crime, notices were issued to the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 to appear before the investigating agency for questioning on different dates i.e. on 01.02.2025, 07.02.2025 and 08.02.2025, 1 (2024) 3 SCC 502 19 and the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 replied to the said notices, and further they appeared before the investigating agency promptly without fail and co-operated with the investigating agency, and that the question of absconding or tampering with the evidence, by the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 would not arise. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 were arrested on 09.02.2025 and since then they have been languishing in judicial custody, and that entire investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Hence, he prays to enlarge the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 on bail.

10. On the other hand, Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI in all Criminal Petitions strenuously contended that all the petitioners conspired together and created certain false and fabricated documents, and that there is abundant material to show that the petitioners herein, being the C.E.O and Directors of M/s. Sri Vyshnavi Dairy Specialties Private Limited (A.6), procured adulterated 20 ghee from M/s. Bhole Baba Organic Dairy Milk Private Limited (A.7) and thereafter supplied the same to the TTD. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Sitosterol parameter showed positive result, and the reports have been issued to that extent.

According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, specific accusations have been made as against petitioner/A.5 that he was involved in preparation of false and fabricated documents of A.1 to suit the eligibility for TTD tender process and forwarded the same to A.2, who signed and forwarded the same along with TTD documents. According to him, A.5 played a major role in securing supply order from TTD though A.2 was not eligible to secure the tender and he is aware of the fact that adulterated ghee was supplied to the TTD.

According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, A.3 and A.4 approached the management of A.6 in the year 2019 to participate in TTD ghee tenders in the name of A.6 saying that the entire ghee would be supplied from A.7 and all expenses also are borne by them and also they would give 2% commission to A.6, for which A.6 accepted 21 the said proposal even though it was not having capacity in respect of milk procurement. He submits that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, A.6 got 10 TTD ghee tenders (AP Dairy category/1500 KM category/15 Kg tin category) and supplied total quantity of 33,93,791 Kgs adulterated ghee to the TTD and received their commission from A.7 till A.3 and A.4 took over A.6 company. He further submits that A.5 informed A.3 about the proposal of A.1, being accepted by TTD for supply of ghee in their name, and A.3 informed A.5 to go ahead with the proposal and thereafter ghee was supplied to A.1, who in turn supplied the adulterated ghee to TTD.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioners are highly influential persons, and though the charge sheet has been filed, there is every chance that they would influence the witnesses, and hence, till trial is completed, the petitioners are not entitled to bail. Hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Petitions.

11. Heard Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy and Sri S.Sriram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. Perused the record.

12. Section 41 of the FSS Act, 2006 deals with power of search, seizure, investigation, prosecution and procedure thereof. The said Section reads thus:

"(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."

From the aforesaid provision, it is manifest that if there is any reasonable doubt, the Food Safety Officer may search any place and seize any article of food and inform the Designated Officer of the action taken by him in writing. Proviso to the aforesaid Section makes it clear that no search is deemed irregular on the ground that witnesses in the search are not inhabitants of the locality.

13. Section 42 of the FSS Act, 2006 deals with the procedure for launching prosecution. The said Section reads thus:

"(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 the Commissioner of Food Safety.

(3) 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 recommendations within fourteen 24 days to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution.

..."

It is manifest the aforesaid provision that the Food Safety Officer, after seizing the sample, shall send the same for analysis to the Food Analyst, who shall analyse the sample and send the analysis report mentioning the method of sampling and analysis, to the Designated Officer within 14 days. Thereafter, the Designated Officer would come to the conclusion, basing on the report, whether the contravention is punishable with imprisonment or fine, and if the contravention is punishable with imprisonment, he shall send the recommendations within 14 days to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution.

14. Basing on the aforesaid provisions, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the procedure contemplated under the FSS Act, 2006 has not been complied with. According to him, the samples were not lifted in the presence of the petitioners herein and the same has been done so in the presence of 25 Driver and Cleaner, who are not technical persons. The learned senior counsel further relied upon Section 59 of the FSS Act, 2006, which contemplates punishment for unsafe food. The said Section reads thus:

"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 three months and also with fine which may extend to three 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 grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and also with fine which may extend to fine 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."

A plain reading of the aforesaid provision goes to show that basing on the result of the failure or contravention, punishment is prescribed in the aforesaid Section.

15. It is the contention of the learned senior counsels appearing for the petitioners that there is absolutely no complaint from any quarter stating that any person suffered any grievous injury or death because of consumption of the adulterated food in the case on hand. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that there is no complaint whatsoever from any quarter to that extent. The learned Special Public Prosecutor too did not dispute the contention of the learned senior counsels.

16. The other ground that has been raised is with regard to over-riding effect of Section 89 of the FSS Act, 2006 over the provisions of the BNS. In Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh & others (1 supra), relied on by the learned senior counsel Sri S.Sriram, it is held thus:

(paragraphs 23, 24, 26, 29 and 30).

"23. Section 272 is an offence of adulteration of any article of food or drink. The definition of food under clause (a) of Section 3 FSSA also includes a liquid. If adulteration of an article of food is made which makes such articles noxious as food or drink, the person who adulterates is guilty of an offence punishable under Section 272IPC. It contemplates the accused adulterating food with the intention to sell adulterated food. Thus, intention is an ingredient of the offence. When by adulterating an article of food or liquid, it becomes harmful or poisonous, it can be said that it becomes noxious. If, by adulteration, an article of food becomes noxious, it becomes unsafe food within the meaning of Section 3(zz) FSSA.

24. Section 273 IPC applies when a person sells or, offers or exposes for sale any article of food or drink which has been rendered noxious or has become unfit for food or drink. Section 273 incorporates requirements of knowledge or reasonable belief that the food or drink sold or offered for sale is noxious. Section 59 FSSA does not require the presence of intention as contemplated by Section 272IPC. Under Section 59 FSSA, a person commits an offence who, whether by himself or by any person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe. So, the offence 28 under Section 59 FSSA is made out even if there is an absence of intention as provided in Section 272IPC. However, knowledge is an essential ingredient in sub-section (1) of Section 48, and therefore, it will be a part of Section 59 FSSA. The maximum punishment for the offence under Section 272IPC is imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with a fine. The substantive sentence for the offence punishable under Section 273 is the same, whereas, under Section 59, the punishment is of simple imprisonment extending from three months to a life sentence with a fine of Rupees 3 lakhs up to 10 lakhs.

Conclusion

26. Thus, there are very exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions in FSSA for dealing with offences concerning unsafe food.

29. Therefore, the main Section clearly gives overriding effect to the provisions of FSSA over any other law insofar as the law applies to the aspects of food in the field covered by FSSA. In this case, we are concerned only with Sections 272 and 273IPC. When the offences under Sections 272 and 273IPC are made out, even the offence under Section 59 FSSA will be attracted. In fact, the offence under Section 59 FSSA is more stringent.

30. The decision of this Court in Swami Achyutanand Tirth [Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India, (2014) 13 SCC 314 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 647] does not deal with this contingency at all. In State of Maharashtra [State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan, (2019) 18 SCC 145 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 592] , 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 not be any question of simultaneous prosecution under both the statutes."

A plain reading of the principles laid down in the said judgment goes to show that Section 89 of the FSS Act, 2006 has an over-riding effect over all other food related laws. By virtue of the same, it can be safely inferred that the FSS Act, 2006 shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. 30 So, the said Section indicates that an over-riding effect has been given to the provisions of the FSS Act, 2006 over any other law.

17. Further more, in the case on hand, the petitioners attended before the investigating agency thrice pursuant to issuance of the notice. They appeared and passed on the information, as required by the investigating agency. By virtue of the same, it can be safely inferred that the petitioners co-operated with the investigation. Irrespective of the same, the investigating agency completed investigation and filed charge sheet, examining as many as 292 witnesses and exhibiting 954 documents. Having completed the investigation, the question that crops up for consideration is whether it is necessary to detain the petitioners further.

18. At this stage, the learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that the petitioners are not entitled for bail for the reason that the petitioners are alleged to have threatened the witnesses, and in connection with the same, complaints have been filed as 31 against them. This Court carefully perused the copies of complaints which have been filed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor by way of additional documents on 27.05.2025. A perusal of the same goes to show that a complaint was given by one Sanjeev Kumar Jain on 10.04.2025, pursuant to which a case in crime No.99 of 2025 of Yerpedu police station, Tirupati district was registered on 23.06.2025 against one Bishnoi and Shri Ashish Rohila for the offences under Sections 351 (2) read with 3 (5) of BNS and 174 (2) BNSS. It is alleged in the said case that upon arrival of the informant in the said case, in the Airport, Tirupati, he was approached by two persons viz. Bishnoi, Advocate and Shri Ashish Rohila, an Accountant at Bole Baba Bhagwanpur, and mentally harassed and threatened him and compelled him to switch off his phone with an intent to prevent him from appearing before the SIT and later took him to Chennai in a vehicle and sent him to his native place.

19. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that pursuant to a report dated 08.04.2025 32 lodged by one Ravindra Kumar, a case in crime No.211 of 2025 of Alipiri police station, Tirupati was registered on 24.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 351 (2) read with 3 (5) of the BNS read with 174 (2) BNSS against one Anshul Bishnoi and Ashish Rohilla. It is alleged in the said case that the informant arrived Tirupati to give statement before SIT on 07.04.2025 and while he was going to Hotel, one Anshul Bishnoi, Advocate and Ashish Rohilla stopped him and his wife, took them to around 100 meters from SIT office and told them to talk to Pomil Jain & Company, and when the informant refused to talk, they advised that the complainant was making a mistake and cautioned that the case would get worse if they gave their statement, and threatened as to how he would save himself from Pomil Jain when he goes home and they would take care of everything. It is further alleged in the report that on 23.3.2025 also, he submitted his documents to the investigating officer and went back to home, and after that, the said persons, Pomil Jain threatened him to disappear for 10 to 15 days and forcibly switched off his phone.

Relying upon the aforesaid material, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that in view of the aforesaid acts of the petitioners, there is every likelihood that they would tamper with the evidence and threaten witnesses in future, and hence, they are not entitled for bail.

20. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further contended that the said Ashish Rohila, who is arrayed as accused in aforesaid crimes, filed Writ Petition No.11781 of 2025 before this Court, seeking to declare the action of the respondents therein in conducing coercive investigation and in coercing him to make confessions under the guise of investigation in the present crime No.470 of 2024, dated 25.09.2024 of Tirupati East police station failing which threatening to cause physical harm as per se illegal and opposed to the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, A.14 sent a mail to the Registrar General of the High Court, marking copy to the investigating officer, wherein he categorically stated that 34 he has not filed Writ Petition No.11781 of 2025. Relying upon the same, the learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that that petitioners are highly influential persons and Writ Petitions are being filed at the back of A.14, which goes to show that there is every chance that they would tamper with the evidence. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that this Court, vide its order dated 02.05.2025 passed in the said Writ Petition No.11781 of 2025, observed that the counsel on record submitted that the petitioner in the said Writ Petition is in custody of police and he is not aware of the e-mail, and that the matter was entrusted to him by a counsel from Tirupati, and the pleadings were also attested at Tirupati and sent to him. This Court observed that as seen from the Writ Petition, the advocate at Tirupati attested the signature of the petitioner in the said Writ Petition, and posted the matter to 08.05.2025. The said issue is pending consideration before this Court.

21. This Court is of the view that if really such instances are said to have taken place, it is not known as 35 to why the same is not stated in the counter filed by respondents. Further, in the counter and additional counter, there is no whisper about the accusations made against one Anshul Bishnoi, Advocate and Ashish Rohilla, who are arrayed as accused in the aforesaid cases. He further emphasized that as on the dates of the aforesaid complaints, the petitioners were lodged in prison. He submits that the petitioners were arrested on 09.02.2025 and since then, they have been in judicial remand and it is not the case of the prosecution that on the instructions of A.3, the accused in the aforesaid crimes are alleged to have threatened the witnesses. He submits that the witnesses, who are the informants in the aforesaid crimes, were examined by the SIT and their statements were recorded subsequently. The learned senior counsel relied on a decision in P.Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation2, wherein it is held thus: (paragraphs 30, 31 and 32).

"30. FIR was registered by CBI on 15-5-2017. The appellant was granted interim protection on 31-5- 2018 [P. Chidambaram v. CBI, 2018 SCC OnLine 2 (2020) 13 SCC 337 36 Del 13340] till 20-8-2019. Till the date, there has been no allegation regarding influencing of any witness by the appellant or his men directly or indirectly. In the number of remand applications, there was no whisper that any material witness has been approached not to disclose information about the appellant and his son. It appears that only at the time of opposing the bail and in the counter-affidavit filed by CBI before the High Court, the averments were made that "... the appellant is trying to influence the witnesses and if enlarged on bail, would further pressurise the witnesses...." CBI has no direct evidence against the appellant regarding the allegation of appellant directly or indirectly influencing the witnesses. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, no material particulars were produced before the High Court as to when and how those two material witnesses were approached. There are no details as to the form of approach of those two witnesses either SMS, e-

mail, letter or telephonic calls and the persons who have approached the material witnesses. Details are also not available as to when, where and how those witnesses were approached.

31. The learned Solicitor General submitted that the statement of witness „X‟ who is said to have been approached not to disclose any information regarding the appellant and his son, has been 37 recorded under Section 164 CrPC in which the said witness „X‟ has made the statement that he has been approached. Statement under Section 164 CrPC of the said witness „X‟ is said to have been recorded on 15-3-2018. The said witness allegedly approached or the other witnesses in a case of the present nature, cannot be said to be a rustic or vulnerable witness who could be so easily influenced; more so, when the allegations are said to be based on documents. More particularly, there is no material to show that the appellant or his men have been approaching the said witness so as to influence the witness not to depose against the appellant or his son.

32. It is to be pointed out that the respondent CBI has filed remand applications seeking remand of the appellant on various dates viz. 22-8-2019, 26- 8-2019, 30-8-2019, 2-9-2019, 5-9-2019 and 19-9- 2019, etc. In these applications, there were no allegations that the appellant was trying to influence the witnesses and that any material witnesses (accused) have been approached not to disclose information about the appellant and his son. In the absence of any contemporaneous materials, no weight could be attached to the allegation that the appellant has been influencing the witnesses by approaching the witnesses. The conclusion of the learned Single Judge "... that it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner will not 38 influence the witnesses directly or indirectly...." is not substantiated by any materials and is only a generalised apprehension and appears to be speculative. Mere averments that the appellant approached the witnesses and the assertion that the appellant would further pressurise the witnesses, without any material basis cannot be the reason to deny regular bail to the appellant; more so, when the appellant has been in custody for nearly two months, cooperated with the investigating agency and the charge-sheet is also filed."

On a reading of the aforesaid judgment goes to show that an accusation has been made against the appellant therein that he was trying to influence the witnesses and if he was enlarged on bail, he would further pressurize the witnesses. It has been observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that CBI has no direct evidence against the appellant regarding the allegation that the appellant therein was directly or indirectly influencing the witnesses. In the case on hand too, no material particulars are produced before this Court as to when and as to how the petitioners approached the witnesses. A vague accusation has been made at a belated stage that 39 the witnesses were approached by the accused and in respect of that cases were registered. The fact remains that the said witnesses appeared before the SIT and their statements were recorded and they produced the documents. Even the said fact of complaints being filed, has come up at a belated stage.

22. Bail jurisprudence is based on the touchstone of the principle „Bail is rule and jail is an exception‟ in Indian criminal justice system. The main object of the bail is to ensure presence of the accused before the Court of law to face trial and makes himself available to the Court for serving sentence, if convicted. In a constitutional controlled criminal justice system, balancing approach has to be adopted protecting the rights of the accused and upholding the collective interest of the society, which requires a fearless environment.

23. The petitioners in the case on hand have no flight risk and they co-operated with the investigation and as and when notices were issued, they appeared before the investigating agency and submitted all the documents 40 required by the investigating agency. The petitioners are languishing in jail for more than 4 ½ months. Entire investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that incarceration of the petitioners further is not necessary.

24. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Criminal Petitions are allowed. The petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like each, to the satisfaction of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 03 .07.2025.

DRK 41 03.07.2025 After pronouncement of the order, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI requested that a condition may be imposed directing the petitioners to co- operate with the investigation, if any, and also to attend before the investigating agency as and when called. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is made clear that the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation, if any, by the investigating agency and attend before the investigating agency as and when called.

__________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 03.07.2025.

DRK 42 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY COMMON ORDER IN CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 4203 OF 2025, 4187 of 2025 & 4198 of 2025 03 .07.2025 DRK

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati