Police Cannot Investigate Food Adulteration Offences Punishable Under FSSA; Only Food Safety Authorities Can : Rajasthan HC Quashes FIR
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand has held that police officials appointed under the Police Act lack authority to investigate food adulteration offences punishable under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which must be dealt with by the designated food safety authorities. Hearing a petition by an accused seeking quashing of an FIR alleging sale of adulterated and misbranded food items, registered for offences under Sections 272, 273 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and corresponding provisions of the Act, the Court allowed the plea, quashing the FIR and all criminal proceedings while leaving it open to the competent Food Safety Officer to initiate proceedings strictly under the Act.
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR registered at Police Station Sadar Dholpur for offences under Sections 272, 273 and 420 IPC, along with Sections 26(2)(i) and 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The FIR alleged that food articles were seized from the petitioner, samples were collected, and laboratory analysis revealed adulteration and incorrect branding.
Counsel argued that the FIR and subsequent charge-sheet were unsustainable because Section 89 read with Section 59(i) of the 2006 Act gives the statute an overriding effect, barring prosecution under the IPC for conduct covered by the Act. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decisions in Ram Nath and Sushil Kumar Gupta, which, according to counsel, held that simultaneous prosecution under IPC Sections 272, 273 and the FSSA is impermissible.
The State opposed the petition, stating that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences under the IPC, authorising police investigation and filing of a charge-sheet. The Court considered the submissions, the allegations contained in the FIR, and the statutory provisions invoked, including Section 415 IPC for evaluating the applicability of Section 420 IPC.
The Court recorded that the issue raised in the petition was already settled by the Supreme Court in Ram Nath and Sushil Kumar Gupta. It noted that the Apex Court had stated that “very exhaustive, substantive and procedural provisions in the 2006 Act have been provided for dealing with the offences concerning unsafe food.” The judgment referred to the Supreme Court’s discussion of Section 89, which “shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force”, and observed that the Court in Ram Nath held that the overriding effect was not limited to “food-related laws.” It further recorded the Supreme Court’s finding that when offences under Sections 272 and 273 IPC are made out, “even the offence under Section 59 of the FSSA will be attracted… [and] the offence under Section 59… is more stringent.”
The Court also noted the Supreme Court’s statement that by virtue of Section 89, “Section 59 will override the provisions of Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC” and the conclusion that “there cannot be simultaneous prosecution under both the statutes.” It recorded that the Apex Court had further stated that after enactment of the 2006 Act, “there cannot be prosecution for the offences under Sections 272 and 273 respectively of the IPC.”
Turning to the FIR at hand, the Court observed that the allegations did not indicate that food items were sold to anyone with dishonest intention. It stated that there were “no allegations with regard to inducing on the part of the petitioner,” and that the FIR did not disclose circumstances establishing “undue loss and undue gain.” The Court recorded that where FIR contents do not satisfy the definition of cheating under Section 415 IPC, the offence under Section 420 IPC cannot be said to be made out.
Based on the Supreme Court’s binding interpretation and the absence of material supporting Section 420 IPC, the Court held that the police lacked authority to investigate the matter under the 2006 Act, given Section 89 read with Section 59(i), and that continuation of proceedings under the IPC could not be sustained.
The Court ordered that “the instant criminal misc. petition stands allowed. All proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR No.160/2022… for the offences under Sections 272, 273, 420 IPC and Section 26(2)(i) and 59(i) of the Act of 2006 stand quashed and set-aside.”
“The Food Safety Officer and the authority concerned would be at liberty to initiate proper proceedings… if not already initiated,” and that thereafter, the authority may act “in accordance with the Act of 2006 for the offences punishable therein.”
The stay application and all pending applications stand disposed of and directed that “a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Food Safety Officer for compliance.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mayank Gupta
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Ravi v. State of Rajasthan
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JP:46660
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1945/2024
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
