Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Harish Girdharlal Sarda, proprietor of Shri Hari Jal Seva, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the maintainability of First Information Report dated 07.05.2013 registered at Police Station, Chimur, District Chandrapur, vide Crime No.3011 of 2013 for offences punishable under Sections 55, 63 and 34 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 read with Rules 2, 3, 18(17) of the Food Safety and Standards (Prevention and Restrictions on Sales) Rules, 2011 and Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant also sought to quash the order dated 06.04.2013 passed by the non-applicant no.2 (Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration). The applicant was aggrieved by the initiation and continuation of the proceedings. The court issued rule on 22.09.2014 and continued interim relief granted on 22.07.2014 directing non-applicants not to take coercive steps. Pending the application, an intervenor, the Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Welfare Association, Nagpur, filed Criminal Application No.1624 of 2017 seeking permission to intervene, which was allowed. The intervenor had also filed Writ Petition No.4343 of 2017 raising similar issues. The court considered the submissions of the applicant's counsel, the State's APP, and the intervenor's counsel. The court held that the FIR was not maintainable because no prior sanction under Section 52 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 had been obtained, and the investigation was not conducted by a Food Safety Officer as required under Sections 37, 38, and 39 of the Act. The court found that the prosecution was an abuse of the process of law and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Maintainability - FIR under Sections 55, 63 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 read with Rules 2, 3, 18(17) of Food Safety and Standards (Prevention and Restrictions on Sales) Rules, 2011 and Section 188 IPC - Held that prosecution without prior sanction under Section 52 of the Act and without investigation by a Food Safety Officer is not maintainable and amounts to abuse of process of law (Paras 1-10). B) Food Safety - Sanction - Section 52 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Requirement of prior sanction - Held that no prosecution for an offence under the Act shall be instituted except with the previous sanction of the Food Safety Officer or any authorized officer, and in the absence of such sanction, the FIR is liable to be quashed (Paras 5-8). C) Food Safety - Investigation - Role of Food Safety Officer - Sections 37, 38, 39 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Held that investigation under the Act must be conducted by a Food Safety Officer designated under Section 37, and not by police, and failure to do so vitiates the proceedings (Paras 6-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR registered under Sections 55, 63 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 read with Rules 2, 3, 18(17) of the Food Safety and Standards (Prevention and Restrictions on Sales) Rules, 2011 and Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is maintainable in the absence of prior sanction under Section 52 of the Act and proper investigation by a Food Safety Officer.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application, quashed the FIR dated 07.05.2013 registered at Police Station, Chimur, District Chandrapur, vide Crime No.3011 of 2013, and set aside the order dated 06.04.2013 passed by non-applicant no.2. All consequential proceedings were also quashed.
Law Points
- Maintainability of FIR without sanction under Section 52 of Food Safety and Standards Act
- 2006
- Requirement of investigation by Food Safety Officer
- Applicability of Section 188 IPC in food safety matters
- Quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC for abuse of process
