Judicature For Rajasthan Bench High Court · 2025

: Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 13/11/2025

1. Petitioners have challenged FIR No.315/15 lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station-Ramganj, District- Jaipur(North) against the petitioners for offences under Sections 272, 420 & 120-B of IPC alleging therein that upon receiving information with regard to storage of adulterated food articles, a search was conducted by team of police personnel on 27.07.2015, where they found that the petitioners were indulged in unloading the packets of spices, which appeared to be suspicious, hence, sample was collected, vehicle was seized and the sample was sent by the Food Safety Officer, who was also called at the spot for examination of the food product. Upon analysis, the food article was found adulterated. It was alleged that thus, the adulterated [2025:RJ-JP:45785] (2 of 9) [CRLMP-4176/2015] food articles were being stored with intent to sale the same to the public at large for the purpose of having undue gain and to cause undue loss to the public at large, which may cause adverse effect on health of the public at large.

2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that FIR is without authority and jurisdiction, as the allegations levelled in the FIR principally deal with alleged adulteration in spices, which is essentially a food product as defined under Section 3(j) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, 'the Act of 2006'). Learned counsel further submits that Section 41 of the Act of 2006 deals with power of search, seizure, investigation, prosecution and procedure thereof and further Section 42 deals with the procedure for launching prosecution. Section 42 of the Act of 2006 makes it abundantly clear that the sample of alleged adulterated food shall be collected by the Food Safety Officer and the same shall be sent for further analysis to the designated officer within a period of 14 days with a copy to the Commissioner of Food Safety. Thereafter, on the basis of report, designated officer shall scrutinize as to whether any provision of the Act has been contravened or not; and if such contravention is punishable with imprisonment or with fine only, and after making such scrutiny, he shall submit his recommendation within a period of 14 days to the Commissioner of Food Safety for grant of sanction for prosecution. Thereafter decision shall be taken by the Commissioner, who shall direct the competent authority to launch prosecution before the appropriate Court and such communication shall also be sent to the purchaser, if any. [2025:RJ-JP:45785] (3 of 9) [CRLMP-4176/2015]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further indicates that Section 89 of the Act of 2006 confers overriding effect to the provisions of Act of 2006 over any other law for the time being in force in respect of subjects which are included in the Act of 2006. Learned counsel also submits that the provisions of Section 4(2) of Cr.P.C. make it absolutely clear that the offences relating to any special law shall be dealt with by the provisions of the Statute dealing with such special law and shall be investigated, enquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with by the provisions of such special law, hence, even otherwise lodging of FIR for the alleged offences, which are otherwise subject matter of provisions of the Act of 2006, is sheer abuse of the process of law and has also been lodged in ignorance of mandatory provisions of the Act of 2006 and the Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that bare perusal of the contents of FIR would not indicate any iota of whisper so as to implicate the petitioner for offence under Section 420 IPC, as there is no allegation either with regard to any dishonest intention right from inception, inducement or undue loss or undue gain on account of such alleged inducement. Learned counsel further submits that so far as Section 272, it is also related to food adulteration and after enactment of the Act of 2006, such provisions of IPC have become otiose and redundant; and the petitioner cannot be prosecuted under such provisions of IPC after enactment of special law vide Act of 2006.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in view of above, by lodging FIR against the provisions of the Act of 2006 and Cr.P.C., the petitioners have been subjected to [2025:RJ-JP:45785] (4 of 9) [CRLMP-4176/2015] vexatious and frivolous prosecution, which is causing a miscarriage of justice to the petitioners, hence, a prayer has been made to quash the FIR. Learned counsel placed reliance upon judgment of 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.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal miscellaneous petition and submitted that mere enactment of the Act of 2006 would not in itself make the provisions of IPC ineffective and meaningless. Since bare perusal of FIR would reveal that primarily it has been lodged under the provisions of IPC, therefore, it cannot be said that the police authorities had no jurisdiction to register the FIR. It is also submitted that as the alleged offences are covered under Section 272 of IPC relating to adulteration of food and causing a threat to the health of life on general public, which has been committed with an intent to cheat the public at large and therefore, mere enactment of new Act of 2006 would not oust the jurisdiction of police authorities to register an FIR in the circumstances, where apparently, a cognizable offence was found to have been committed during the search by police authorities.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that at the time of filing of criminal miscellaneous petition, the FIR was at the initial stage of investigation, hence, it cannot be said that the offences under the provisions of IPC are not made out against the petitioners.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:45785] (5 of 9) [CRLMP-4176/2015]

9. It is a matter of record that the Act of 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.

10. The issue involved in the instant case as to whether FIR can be lodged under Section 272 of IPC after enactment of the Act of 2006 or not, and whether as per the provisions of the Act of 2006, the accused can be prosecuted only by way of filing complaint under Section 42 of the Act of 2006. After considering all the provisions including Section 89 of the Act of 2006, which confers overriding effect of the Act of 2006 over all the provisions, this Court in the case of Ram Singh (supra) observed as under: "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. [2025:RJ-JP:45785] (6 of 9) [CRLMP-4176/2015]

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 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: [2025:RJ-JP:45785] (7 of 9) [CRLMP-4176/2015] “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 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:45785] (8 of 9) [CRLMP-4176/2015] 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."

11. So far as FIR under Section 420 of IPC is concerned, contents of FIR do not reveal that the alleged food articles were sold by the petitioners to any person or as they induced any of the person of the society to purchase the said food articles or having any such dishonest intention from the inception. Thus, there are no allegations with regard to inducing on the part of the petitioners, nor the allegations of causing undue loss and undue gain could be established on the basis of the contents of FIR. Therefore, where the contents of FIR do not satisfy the definition of cheating as defined under Section 415 of IPC, no offences under Section 420 of IPC can be said to be made out under the circumstances.

12. Section 120-B of IPC in itself does not constitute any independent offence and can co-exist with other offence under the relevant law. Since in the instant case, FIR under Section 272 & 420 of IPC can not be maintained for the reasons discussed hereinabove, therefore, in isolation offence under Section 120B of IPC also cannot be made out, hence, this Court finds that [2025:RJ-JP:45785] (9 of 9) [CRLMP-4176/2015] permitting the petitioners to be prosecuted pursuant to impugned FIR would amount to abuse of the process of law. Hence, in the light of analysis of facts, provisions of law and earlier judgment delivered by this Court, in order to secure ends to justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice, this Court deems it just and proper to quash and set aside FIR No.315/15 registered at Police Station- Ramganj, District-Jaipur(North) against the petitioners for offences under Sections 272, 420 & 120-B of IPC along with all subsequent proceedings.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed.

14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. DAKSH/63 (ANAND SHARMA),J