MANOJ KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question which arises for consideration is whether 'gutkha' is a food article or not, under the provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (in short, 'Act of 2006')?

(2.) The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna, in Criminal Case No. 1931/2013, whereby the application preferred under Sections 26, 27 of the Act of 2006 has been rejected by the Trial Court and the Trial Court has proceeded with the prosecution against the present applicant.

(3.) The facts leading to filing of the present case are that the Food Safety Officer (in short, 'FSO'), District Guna, carried out inspection of a food establishment which is involved in the sale of paan masala, 'gutkha', supari and other allied products. The FSO upon suspecting the quality of the food product to be substandard proceeded to purchase of 'Vimal Gutkha' and the same was forwarded to the State Food Testing Laboratory (in short, 'Lab') for its analysis. According to the report issued by the Food Analyst, the sample was found to be sub-standard, unsafe as also the same was misbranded. Consequently, a complaint was filed before the Competent Court and the Competent Court framed charges against the present applicant on 09.07.2015 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 26, 27 and 31 (1) read with Section 58, 59 and 63 of the Act of 2006. Subsequently, the applicant preferred an application under Sections 26, 27 of the Act of 2006 and the bone of contention before the Trial Court was that the article in question is 'gutkha' and the same is not covered by the provisions of the Act of 2006 as there is a Special Act, namely, The Cigarettes And Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement And Regulation of Trade And Commerce, Production, Supply And Distribution) Act, 2003 (in short, 'Act of 2003'), which will prevail over the provisions of the Act of 2006 as the same is a Special Act. Therefore, it was argued before the Trial Court that the prosecution lodged under the Act of 2006 is misconceived and deserves to be dropped.