Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishna Chandra Airen vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2020
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
-1- MCRC No.1726/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE
MCRC NO.1726/2020
(Krishna Chandra Airen s/o Fateh Chand Airen vs. State of
M.P)
20.01.2020: (INDORE):
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Akash Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first application under section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.07/2020 registered at Police Station, Neemuch Cant. for the offence punishable under sections 272, 273 & 420 of the IPC.
As per the prosecution story on 02.01.2020 Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Food Safety Officer, Neemuch submitted a written complaint at Police Station Neemuch Cant. stating that on 02.12.2019 he conducted a raid in the firm viz. M/s Airen Spices situated at Ward No.23, Scheme No.9, Neemuch where he collected the sample of various spices and sent to the Food Laboratary, Bhopal for analysis. According to him, he had earlier collected certain samples on 17.04.2019 which were found to be sub standard and the investigation of that case is still pending. On the basis of the -2- MCRC No.1726/2020 complaint, FIR bearing crime No.07/2020 has been registered against the applicant.
Shri Bhargava, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate has submitted that present applicant is neither the owner nor proprietor of the firm M/s Airen Spices. He has not indulged in any kind of business. The applicant's son Ankit Airen is the proprietor of the firm from where the alleged samples of the food and spices have been collected. He further submits that offences under sections 272 & 273 of the IPC are bailable and no ingredients are available for the constitution of offence under section 420 of the IPC. He further submits that the Food Safety Officer is not competent to lodge an FIR under the provisions of the IPC. The provisions of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2006') make it amply clear that the prescribed procedure has to be followed for prosecuting the offences under the Act and that too after taking sanction from the competent authority. The Food Safety Officer has not followed the procedure and directly got registered an FIR against the applicant. In similar facts and circumstances the Court has quashed the FIR in MCRC No.39005/2019 vide order dated 23.11.2019 and in other similar cases the bail under section 438 has been allowed by the coordinate bench, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail.
Learned Govt. Advocate opposes the bail application by submitting that the applicant has repeated the offence. One trial in case No.86/2011 is pending before the JMFC, -3- MCRC No.1726/2020 Neemuch and this is the third repeat offence by the present applicant. Under the Act of 2006 there is no bar for the Police to register an FIR against the accused. As per the complaint of the Food Safety Officer the applicant is also equally involved in the business along with his son, therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
That the applicant's son is the proprietor of the firm M/s Airen Species but as per the report of the Food Safety Officer the applicant has also found involved in the business along with his son and they are also facing a trial No.86/2011 before the JMFC under the same offence and thereafter the samples were collected from the firm on 02.12.2019 which were found substandard but the applicant was found involved to commit the same offence repeatedly. At present the sample has been sent to the laboratory for chemical examination, therefore, the application is pre- mature.
So far the arguments of Shri Bhargava that the applicants are liable to be prosecuted under the Act of 2006 and not under the provisions of the IPC, the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid Act has not been followed by the Food Safety Officer and he cannot directly make a complaint to the Police for registration of FIR are concerned, a similar issue came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas reported in (2019) 10 SCC 75. The Apex Court has held that there is no -4- MCRC No.1726/2020 conflict between the provisions of IPC and the Motor Vehicles Act, both the statutes operate in entirely different spheres. The ingredients of the offence under both the statute, as discussed, are different and the offender can be tried and punished independently under both the statutes. The prosecution if otherwise maintainable would lie both under IPC and Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Vehicles Act is a complete Code in itself in so far as the motor vehicles are concerned, however, there is no bar under the Motor Vehicles Act or otherwise to try and prosecute the offence under the IPC for an offence relating to motor vehicle accident. In the present case under the Food Safety and Standard Act, there is no bar for registration of an FIR under the IPC. Since the offences under the Food Safety and Standard Act are bailable, therefore, despite registration of two cases the applicant is continuing with the commission of offence, therefore, they are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application is rejected.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by Hari Kumar
Nair
hk/ Date: 2020.01.23 10:56:10 +05'30'