High Court · 2025
Case Details
(2) Briefly the facts of the case are that the police raided the business premises of the applicants on 11th May, 2011, upon receiving a secret information that the accused is engaged in manufacturing spices illegally without any license, who are also packing the same for sale in the market. The police team reached at the place i.e. E- Block House No. 5318 Rajajipuram, Lucknow and found turmeric power and coriander power, besides some packed spices in the white bags. The material was branded as 'Awadh Masala Turmeric Powder'. Apart from the turmeric powder, certain packets of chilly and other spices were also found, and there a person namely Ranjeet Gupta revealed the police team that he is running this business in association with Awadh Behari Gupta, and they sell the spices in the market. It was also disclosed that they also mix the inferior quality spices while doing the packing. Broadly, on these allegations, the above first information report was registered for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 272 and 420 IPC. (3) After registration of the F.I.R., the investigation was carried out and a final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was filed against the accused persons, who were charge- sheeted (Annexure No.20) for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 272 and 420 IPC. (4) Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the offences as alleged in the final report would not be made out against the applicants and their prosecution is not sustainable as the alleged raid was conducted on 11th May, 2011, whereas the samples were drawn on 1st July, 2011 for analyses by Public Analyst. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to the report of the Public Analyst bearing no.5155 (Annexure No.15), dated 28th July, 2011, to point out that as per the opinion by the Public Analyst, the sample tested was found to be adulterated. According to him, in these facts, the offences punishable under Sections 272, 420 IPC would not be made out particularly when no case relating to the adulteration of the food items has been set up by prosecution. Learned counsel has further argued that the F.I.R. contains an allegation that the accused are engaged in illegal packing of spices for human consumption, whereas according to him, a valid license was issued in their favour by the competent authority, effective from 1st April, 2009 and valid till 31st March, 2010. A copy of the said license in favour of applicant Awadh Behari Gupta is Annexure No.16. According to learned counsel, after the expiry of the license, the license holder had applied for renewal, but instead of renewing the same, the authority issued a fresh license on 19th July, 2011 (Annexure No.18). Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the applicants were authorized to conduct the said activity. He submits that no independent witness has been relied upon by the prosecution to show that the recovered spices were to be sold in the market or to anyone else, therefore, apparently the prosecution of the applicants is nothing, but abuse of the process of law. He prays that the impugned charge sheet and the proceedings arising out of it to be quashed in the interest of justice. (5) While opposing the prayer, learned State Counsel has argued that the report of the Public Analyst dated 28th July, 2011 described the deficiencies in the food article and a categoric opinion is delivered that the sample tested was found mixed with non permitted oils, which is harmful for the human consumption, therefore, it is crystal clear that the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 272 IPC are made out. According to him, the investigation report is supported with the scientific evidence, therefore, the petition be dismissed. (6) However, during the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned State Counsel that the valid license was issued by the competent authority in favour of the applicants bearing license number PFA-114 and subsequently another license was issued on 19th July, 2011. (7) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that according to the prosecution, the police acted upon a secret information received on 11th May, 2011 and raided the business premises of the applicants where at the time of detecting the illegal activity of manufacturing spices it was revealed by one of the accused Ranjeet Gupta that he along with Awadh Behari Gupta is engaged in this activity. (8) Further, during the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned State Counsel that on the date of conducting the raid and seized the spices, no sample were drawn for conducting the scientific test and admittedly the samples were drawn on 1st July, 2011. A perusal of the case file further shows that the Investigating Officer made an entry on 29th May, 2011 in the daily diary and observed that at the time of recovery of the spices, no sample was drawn, therefore, it was not sent for Forensic Science Labrotary and at the same time it is observed that a case of cheating is made out against the accused who are being sent to face trial. Once the record of case shows that neither the sample of the seized spices was drawn nor there was any report to prima facie show that the alleged spices were unfit for human consumption, therefore, the conclusion of prosecute the accused is based on conjectures. That apart, the report of the Public Analyst dated 28th July, 2011 contains an opinion that the sample of turmeric powder is mixed with corriander powder which makes it adulterated. (9) The opinion delivered by the Public Analyst does indicate about the adulteration in the sample sent for testing before the Public Analyst, but there is nothing to indicate that it was mixed with something to make it dangerous or noxious for human consumption. Concededly, it is not a case where the recovered food articles were being sold in the market or were purchased by the police team, therefore, strictly, the alleged offences would not be made out. Most importantly, the samples were drawn after a period of two months from the date of conducting the raid and this would result in prejudice to the accused which was not drawn in his presence. (10) Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 194 has analyzed the provisions of Sections 272 and 273 IPC and observed that if, adulteration of food article makes it noxious the person who adulterates is guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 272 and 273 IPC, if he does it with an intention to sell adulterated food. It is further observed that if such a food becomes harmful or poisonous, it can be said that it becomes noxious. The relevant observations reads as under: "22. In these appeals, we are dealing only with Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. The same read thus: "272. Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale.—Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
273. Sale of noxious food or drink.—Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
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 of the 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 272 of the IPC. 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) of FSSA." (11) Similarly, the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC would also not be made out as it is not a case where the accused has made a wrongful gain by causing any wrongful loss to any other person. (12) Resultantly, present application succeeds and the charge sheet dated 19.09.2011 filed u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C., arising out of case crime no.212 of 2011 in Sessions Trial No.808 of 2013, titled State Vs. Ranjeet Gupta and another, under Sections 420, 272 IPC, Police Station Talkatora, District Lucknow, and the proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed. (13) The application is allowed. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Raj RAJ KUMAR RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench
(2) Briefly the facts of the case are that the police raided the business premises of the applicants on 11th May, 2011, upon receiving a secret information that the accused is engaged in manufacturing spices illegally without any license, who are also packing the same for sale in the market. The police team reached at the place i.e. E- Block House No. 5318 Rajajipuram, Lucknow and found turmeric power and coriander power, besides some packed spices in the white bags. The material was branded as 'Awadh Masala Turmeric Powder'. Apart from the turmeric powder, certain packets of chilly and other spices were also found, and there a person namely Ranjeet Gupta revealed the police team that he is running this business in association with Awadh Behari Gupta, and they sell the spices in the market. It was also disclosed that they also mix the inferior quality spices while doing the packing. Broadly, on these allegations, the above first information report was registered for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 272 and 420 IPC. (3) After registration of the F.I.R., the investigation was carried out and a final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was filed against the accused persons, who were charge- sheeted (Annexure No.20) for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 272 and 420 IPC. (4) Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the offences as alleged in the final report would not be made out against the applicants and their prosecution is not sustainable as the alleged raid was conducted on 11th May, 2011, whereas the samples were drawn on 1st July, 2011 for analyses by Public Analyst. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to the report of the Public Analyst bearing no.5155 (Annexure No.15), dated 28th July, 2011, to point out that as per the opinion by the Public Analyst, the sample tested was found to be adulterated. According to him, in these facts, the offences punishable under Sections 272, 420 IPC would not be made out particularly when no case relating to the adulteration of the food items has been set up by prosecution. Learned counsel has further argued that the F.I.R. contains an allegation that the accused are engaged in illegal packing of spices for human consumption, whereas according to him, a valid license was issued in their favour by the competent authority, effective from 1st April, 2009 and valid till 31st March, 2010. A copy of the said license in favour of applicant Awadh Behari Gupta is Annexure No.16. According to learned counsel, after the expiry of the license, the license holder had applied for renewal, but instead of renewing the same, the authority issued a fresh license on 19th July, 2011 (Annexure No.18). Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the applicants were authorized to conduct the said activity. He submits that no independent witness has been relied upon by the prosecution to show that the recovered spices were to be sold in the market or to anyone else, therefore, apparently the prosecution of the applicants is nothing, but abuse of the process of law. He prays that the impugned charge sheet and the proceedings arising out of it to be quashed in the interest of justice. (5) While opposing the prayer, learned State Counsel has argued that the report of the Public Analyst dated 28th July, 2011 described the deficiencies in the food article and a categoric opinion is delivered that the sample tested was found mixed with non permitted oils, which is harmful for the human consumption, therefore, it is crystal clear that the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 272 IPC are made out. According to him, the investigation report is supported with the scientific evidence, therefore, the petition be dismissed. (6) However, during the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned State Counsel that the valid license was issued by the competent authority in favour of the applicants bearing license number PFA-114 and subsequently another license was issued on 19th July, 2011. (7) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that according to the prosecution, the police acted upon a secret information received on 11th May, 2011 and raided the business premises of the applicants where at the time of detecting the illegal activity of manufacturing spices it was revealed by one of the accused Ranjeet Gupta that he along with Awadh Behari Gupta is engaged in this activity. (8) Further, during the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned State Counsel that on the date of conducting the raid and seized the spices, no sample were drawn for conducting the scientific test and admittedly the samples were drawn on 1st July, 2011. A perusal of the case file further shows that the Investigating Officer made an entry on 29th May, 2011 in the daily diary and observed that at the time of recovery of the spices, no sample was drawn, therefore, it was not sent for Forensic Science Labrotary and at the same time it is observed that a case of cheating is made out against the accused who are being sent to face trial. Once the record of case shows that neither the sample of the seized spices was drawn nor there was any report to prima facie show that the alleged spices were unfit for human consumption, therefore, the conclusion of prosecute the accused is based on conjectures. That apart, the report of the Public Analyst dated 28th July, 2011 contains an opinion that the sample of turmeric powder is mixed with corriander powder which makes it adulterated. (9) The opinion delivered by the Public Analyst does indicate about the adulteration in the sample sent for testing before the Public Analyst, but there is nothing to indicate that it was mixed with something to make it dangerous or noxious for human consumption. Concededly, it is not a case where the recovered food articles were being sold in the market or were purchased by the police team, therefore, strictly, the alleged offences would not be made out. Most importantly, the samples were drawn after a period of two months from the date of conducting the raid and this would result in prejudice to the accused which was not drawn in his presence. (10) Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 194 has analyzed the provisions of Sections 272 and 273 IPC and observed that if, adulteration of food article makes it noxious the person who adulterates is guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 272 and 273 IPC, if he does it with an intention to sell adulterated food. It is further observed that if such a food becomes harmful or poisonous, it can be said that it becomes noxious. The relevant observations reads as under: "22. In these appeals, we are dealing only with Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. The same read thus: "272. Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale.—Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
273. Sale of noxious food or drink.—Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
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 of the 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 272 of the IPC. 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) of FSSA." (11) Similarly, the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC would also not be made out as it is not a case where the accused has made a wrongful gain by causing any wrongful loss to any other person. (12) Resultantly, present application succeeds and the charge sheet dated 19.09.2011 filed u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C., arising out of case crime no.212 of 2011 in Sessions Trial No.808 of 2013, titled State Vs. Ranjeet Gupta and another, under Sections 420, 272 IPC, Police Station Talkatora, District Lucknow, and the proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed. (13) The application is allowed. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Raj RAJ KUMAR RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench