Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. The facts and the grounds urged in W P Nos.2172- 73/2015 are more or less one and the same except elaborating the contentions that are raised in W P Nos.6225-26/2014. It is contended that under FSSA, a special machinery is provided for launching prosecution with the previous permission of the Commissioner of Food Safety, which is not followed. Forwarding the report to the Government without the sanction of the Food Safety Commissioner is bad in law. It is further contended that a special law has been enacted relating to food safety and therefore prosecution can only be launched by that authority alone. While collecting and sending the samples, the definite procedure as contemplated in FSSA has not been followed. Under Section 15 of Lokayukta Act, it is open to Lokayuktha to take assistance either from the State Government or Central Government or any other Agency, which ought to have been availed by resorting to procedure prescribed under FSSA. The certificate issued by Prestine Laboratory cannot be acted upon as the said laboratory is not the authorized one and it is a private one.

(e) 2011(1) Crimes 687 (Bhagawati Prasad Pant Vs., State of Uttaranchal) to the effect "The Food Inspector has not followed the procedure of seizing and sampling food articles, even test carried out under the Act is not permissible. The delay of one month in getting the report is also fatal. Thus, illegality in seizing and sampling food articles may vitiate prosecution case.

(f) 2012(2) Crimes 643 to the effect "The bottles were not cleaned vitiates the prosecution case".

In view of the aforesaid crystal clear legal proposition and particular provisions under the FSSA we are in agreement with the arguments advanced by the petitioner's Counsel that for adulteration of food or misbranding, after coming into force of the provisions of FSSA vide notification dated 29th July, 2010, the authorities can take action only under the FSSA as it postulates an overriding effects over all other food related law including the PFA Act. In view of the specific provisions under the FSSA, the offences relating to adulteration of food that are governed under the FSSA after July 29, 2010 are to be treated as per the procedures to be followed for drawing and analysis of samples as have been provided for. The provisions of penalties and prosecution have also been provided therein. Therefore, before launching any prosecution against an alleged offence of food adulteration, it is necessary for the concerned authorities to follow the mandatory requirements as provided under Sections 41 and 42 of the FSSA and, therefore, the police have no authority or jurisdiction to investigate the matter under FSSA. Section 42 empowers the Food Safety Officer for inspection of food business, drawing samples and sending them to Food Analyst for analysis. 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 to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution. Therefore invoking Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code in the matter relating to adulteration of food pursuant to the impugned Government Order is wholly unjustified and nonest. furthermore, it appears that the impugned Government Order has been issued without application of proper mind and examining the matter minutely and thus the State Government travelled beyond the jurisdiction."

62. Section 4(1) of Cr P C provides that "All offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained". Section 4(2) of Cr P C says "All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying to otherwise dealing with such offences. Section 5 of Cr P C says "Nothing contained in this Code shall in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred or any special form or procedure prescribed by any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, it is clear, by invoking IPC for supply of alleged substandard food, it is mandated to follow the special procedure laid down under FSSA. Without following the prescribed procedure test of samples as per the whims and fancies in a private unrecognized laboratory even prior to the FIR greatly prejudiced the petitioners. Even if IPC is invoked the special procedure laid down under FSSA for testing and declaring the product as substandard should have been followed. If that had been followed, the petitioners would have got the right to contest the test reports by way of testing the counter samples at the referral laboratory as per Section 43(2) of FSSA and this opportunity is denied to the petitioners. The samples tested by the prosecution have not pointed out any deviation in standards. Hence framing of charges for the supply of substandard foods u/s 270 IPC allegedly spreading infectious disease is not made out. When the main allegation of supply of substandard food is not made out, charges u/s 120B and 420 IPC for the alleged supply of substandard food cannot sustain against the petitioners.