Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia and Vijay Banarasi Chaurasia, were engaged in the business of selling 'Mint' and 'Saunf' products. On 12th June 2019, the Food Safety Officer, Suresh Posane Torab, conducted a raid at their premises and seized samples of the products, alleging that they were being sold as 'food' without a license and in violation of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. An FIR was registered against them under Sections 26(2)(i), 52, and 56 of the FSS Act. The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR. The main legal issue was whether 'Mint' and 'Saunf' products fall within the definition of 'food' under the FSS Act and whether their sale can be prohibited under Section 26(2)(i). The petitioners argued that these products are not 'food' as they are not intended for consumption as food but are used as mouth fresheners or for digestive purposes. They also contended that the FSS Act does not apply to products that are not 'food'. The State argued that the products are sold as 'food' and are therefore covered under the Act. The court analyzed the definition of 'food' under Section 3(1)(j) of the FSS Act, which excludes tobacco and tobacco products as defined in the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003. The court noted that 'Mint' and 'Saunf' products do not contain tobacco and are not 'food' as they are not intended for human consumption as food. The court held that the sale of such products cannot be prohibited under Section 26(2)(i) of the FSS Act, which applies only to 'food'. The court also observed that the prosecution under the FSS Act was not maintainable as the products were not 'food'. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.
Headnote
A) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Definition of 'Food' - Section 3(1)(j) - Interpretation - The term 'food' under the FSS Act includes substances intended for human consumption, but does not include tobacco or tobacco products as defined in the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003. The court held that 'Mint' and 'Saunf' products, even if sold as mouth fresheners, are not 'food' under the FSS Act and cannot be regulated under it. (Paras 1-10) B) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Prohibition on Sale of Certain Products - Section 26(2)(i) - Scope - Section 26(2)(i) prohibits the sale of 'food' which is not of the nature or substance demanded by the purchaser. The court held that this provision does not apply to products that are not 'food' under the Act. The sale of 'Mint' and 'Saunf' products, which are not food, cannot be prohibited under this section. (Paras 11-20) C) Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 - Definition of 'Tobacco Products' - Section 3(p) - The definition of 'tobacco products' under COTPA includes products containing tobacco. The court noted that 'Mint' and 'Saunf' products do not contain tobacco and are therefore not covered under COTPA. The prosecution under the FSS Act for sale of such products is not maintainable. (Paras 21-25) D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR against the petitioners as the allegations did not disclose any offence under the FSS Act. The court held that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process of law. (Paras 26-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sale of 'Mint' and 'Saunf' products, which are not tobacco products, can be prohibited under Section 26(2)(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and whether the petitioners can be prosecuted for selling such products without a license.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 112 of 2019 registered at Samta Nagar Police Station, Kandivali (East), Mumbai, and all proceedings arising therefrom, holding that the sale of 'Mint' and 'Saunf' products does not constitute an offence under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Law Points
- Interpretation of 'food' under Section 3(1)(j) of FSS Act
- 2006
- Prohibition on sale of tobacco products under Section 26(2)(i) of FSS Act
- Applicability of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act
- 2003
- Doctrine of strict construction of penal statutes
- Principle of ejusdem generis
