Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.13/2021 registered at Police Station Bairad, District Shivpuri for offence under Sections 420, 272 of IPC and under Sections 51, 26(2)(ii) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 ( in short '' the Act, 2006'').

It is the case of the applicant that on 18/11/2020, the Food Safety Officer conducted a raid on Manish Milk Dairy and took samples of milk, which was alleged to be kept for sale. As per the report of Food Analyst, the said sample was found to be of substandard quality and accordingly, FIR has been registered under the above- mentioned Sections. It is the case of the applicant that some proceeding has been initiated before the SDM which is pending consideration and since there is a provision for penalty, therefore, the registration of FIR in the light of pending proceeding before the Court of SDM is bad as it amounts to double jeopardy. It is submitted that the applicant is running a Milk Dairy and it is incorrect to say that the milk was kept for sale. In fact, the milk products were produced and sapreta was left after preparation of food products. It is further submitted that since the adjudicating authority or the Tribunal as provided under Sections 69 and 70 of the Act, 2006 is empowered to impose penalty, therefore, the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 MCRC 11462 of 2021 Manish Gupta vs. State of MP registration of FIR is beyond the purview of the Act, 2006. It is further submitted that the Act, 2006, is a complete Act in itself and has its own procedure as well as penal provisions. It is submitted that under Section 68 of the Act, 2006 provides for competent authority, Section 69 provides for compounding the offence and Sections 70 and 71 provides for powers of the Appellate Tribunal. It is submitted that under Section 69 of the Act, the competent authority has authority to compound the offence and accordingly, initiation of proceedings under the IPC is bad.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. According to the FIR, the sample of milk which was collected, was found to be of substandard quality and the milk fat was found to be 0.4 per cent against minimum of 4.5 per cent. Similarly, S.NF was found to be 8.2 per cent against minimum of 8.5 per cent.

It is the case of the applicant that since the Act, 2006 is a complete Act in itself and provides for separate procedure for penalties, therefore, the FIR is not maintainable as it would amount to double jeopardy.

In the present case, it is not the case of the applicant that any THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 MCRC 11462 of 2021 Manish Gupta vs. State of MP penalty has already been imposed on him. Further, the offence has also been registered under Sections 420 and 272 of IPC. It is not the case of the applicant that he had already displayed in his shop that adulterated or substandard milk is sold. It is the defence of the applicant that the milk was not kept for the purpose of sale but it was a sapreta after manufacturing of milk products. According to the FIR, he is running a Milk Dairy. The applicant has not produced any licence to show that he is competent to produce any milk product. Further, it would be a defence of the applicant that the sample which has been collected, was not a milk but it was a sapreta and it was not meant for sale. Further, the applicant has not clarified as to why he had kept the sapreta in his shop, specifically when according to him, the same was not meant for sale. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution as well the applicant that it was displayed by the applicant that the so-called milk/sapreta was not meant for sale. Selling any adulterated or substandard product to the innocent customers by projecting that the said product is a pure and safe for human consumption, would certainly be an offence under Section 420 of IPC.

So far as the offence under Section 272 of IPC is concerned, the defence of the applicant that the milk was not kept for sale, cannot be accepted at this stage. If the milk/sapreta was not meant for sale, then he should not have kept the same in the shop and should have kept somewhere else or should have destroyed. Prima facie, it is clear that THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 MCRC 11462 of 2021 Manish Gupta vs. State of MP the sample of milk which has been collected by the Officer, was meant for sale, and it was not sapreta as claimed by applicant.