RAM NATH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1379 of 2011.

(2.) The issue involved in these appeals is about the interplay between the provisions of Chapter IX of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, 'the FSSA') and Ss. 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC').

(3.) Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2012 takes exception to the order dtd. 5/10/2010 passed by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court. The appellant filed a petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC') seeking quashing of the prosecution for the offences punishable under Ss. 272 and 273 of the IPC. On 11/5/2010, the State of Uttar Pradesh issued an order granting power to the authorities to initiate prosecutions under Ss. 272 and 273 of the IPC as well as under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'PFA'). On 28/8/2010, a First Information Report (for short, 'FIR') was lodged by a food inspector representing the Regional Food Controller, Agra, against the petitioner alleging the commission of offences under Ss. 272 and 273 of the IPC. The allegation was that, though the appellant did not possess a licence to sell the commodity of mustard oil, he continued to carry on the business of sale. Another allegation was that the petitioner had adulterated the mustard oil, edible oil and rice brine oil. The petitioner approached the High Court to quash the FIR on various grounds. The appellant relied on Allahabad High Court's decision dtd. 8/9/2010, in the case of M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. and Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, 2010 SCC OnLine All 1708. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. Incidentally, the decision in the case of Pepsico India is the subject matter of challenge by the State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 476-478 of 2012. In this case, FIR was registered against the respondent on 11/8/2010, alleging the commission of offences under Ss. 272 and 273 of the IPC. The allegation was of adulteration in the cold drinks manufactured by the respondent. The view taken in the case of Pepsico India was that, from 29/7/2010, when the FSSA came into force, the provisions thereof would have an overriding effect over the food-related laws, including Ss. 272 and 273 of the IPC. Further, it was held that the police have no authority or jurisdiction to investigate a case under the FSSA.