GANESH PANDURANG JADHAO Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Criminal Applications and Criminal Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing by consent of all the parties, and since the point raised in all these cases is more or less similar, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the purpose of disposal of the cases, we would utilise facts of Writ Petition No. 1027 of 2015 as representative. We understand that in most of the cases the facts are similar and the petitioners / applicants are similarly placed.

(2.) On 14th May, 2015, the petitioner was found transporting large quantities of pouches of tobacco which is called 'Gutka' in common parlance, pouches of pan-masala in a truck. The truck was stopped by respondent no. 4, who is Food Safety Officer of Osmanabad district. He alleged that he not only seized the goods but even lodged a police complaint alleging that the petitioner had committed violation of Government Notification, dated 15th May, 2014, prohibiting certain acts pertaining to Gutka/Pan Masala and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 26 and 30 of the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 (in short, FSS Act, 2006). He further alleged that the petitioner was also liable to be prosecuted and punished for offences punishable under Sections 272, 273, 188 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code. The police registered offence vide a Crime No. 70 of 2015 and arrested the petitioner. The petitioner secured bail, but asserted that lodging of complaint and registration of crime for offences punishable under provisions of Indian Penal Code was illegal. According to them, the offence punishable under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Penal Code is not made out against them.

(3.) It is an admitted fact that the FSS Act, 2006, empowered Food and Safety Commissioner, State of Maharashtra, under Section 30 of the FSS Act, 2006, prohibiting sale, manufacture etc. of some commodities if he is satisfied that prohibition would be in "public interest". Since 2013, the Commissioner has been promulgating year to year order prohibiting manufacture of scented supari, tobacco, kharra etc. for a period of one year. He also mentioned in the order that the violation would entail penalty up to Rs. 2,00,000/-. On the day of incident, the prohibitory order was in force. It is, therefore, clear that admittedly the petitioners were found to have committed violation of the prohibitory order. (In the case it was found that the petitioner was transporting gunny bags containing Pan-masala packages and tobacco pouches. Transporting such prohibited committee apparently amounted violation of the prohibitory order and the petitioner was liable for certain penal action.)