(2025:JHHC:26740 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 560 of 2023 1. Prakash Kumar Agarwal, Aged about 50 years, S/o Radhey Shyam Agarwal. 2. Anup Kumar Agarwal, Aged about 54 years, S/o Radhey Shyam Agarwal. 3. Nitesh Kumar Agarwal @ @Nitesh Agarwal, Aged about 31 years, S/o Anup Agarwal. 4. Suraj Agarwal, Aged about 28 years, S/o Anup Agarwal 5. Raunak Agarwal, Aged about 26 years, S/o Anup Agarwal All residents of Opp. I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Sonardangal, P.O. & P.S.: Chirkunda, District: Dhanbad. … Petitioners - Versus - 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Home Secretary, at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi. 2. The Director General of Police, Police Bhawan, Police Headquarters, DPRD Building, HEC Dhurwa, P.O.& P.S.: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi. 3. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District: Dhanbad. 4. The Rural Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District: Dhanbad. 5. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nirsa, At, P.O. & P.S. Nirsa, District: Dhanbad. 6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Maithan, At, P.O. & P.S.: Maithan, District: Dhanbad. 7. The Officer In-charge, Chirkunda Police Station, At, P.O. & P.S.: Chirkunda, District: Dhanbad. … Respondents WITH W.P. (Cr.) No.531 of 2023 Uma Agarawal, aged 51 years, wife of Anup Kumar Agarwal @ Anup Agarwal, resident of Opp. I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Sonardangal, P.O. & P.S.- Chirkunda, District- Dhanbad. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Home Secretary, at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi. 2. The Director General of Police, Police Bhawan, Police Headquarters, DPRD Building, HEC Dhurwa, P.O.& P.S.: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi. 3. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District: Dhanbad. 4. The Rural Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District: Dhanbad. 5. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nirsa, At, P.O. & P.S.: Nirsa, District: Dhanbad. 6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Maithan, At, P.O. & P.S.: Maithan, District: Dhanbad. 7. The Officer In-charge, Chirkunda Police Station, At, P.O. & P.S.: Chirkunda, District: Dhanbad. …. Respondents. ------ CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ----- -2- For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate : Ms. Nidhi Rani, Advocate For the Res.-State : Mr. Yogesh Modi, A.C. to AAG-IA --- 13/02.09.2025 W.P. (Cr.) No.531 of 2023 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press this application. 2. Prayer is allowed. 3. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as not pressed. W.P.(Cr.) No. 560 of 2023 4. Heard the parties. 5. The petitioners have filed this application for quashing of the F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Chirkunda P.S. Case No.159 of 2023, instituted for offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 353, 504, 506, 511 & 120B of the I.P.C. 6. From perusal of the typed report of the aforesaid case, it appears that the informant, who is the Police Officer of Chirkunda police station, had gone to the godown of the petitioners and collected samples of several spices and other grocery items. The samples so collected were sent for chemical examination. 7. Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no case under any of the Section of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 has been shown to be made out in the present case as from the crux of the entire facts of this case, it will appear that the informant who is the Police Officer has exceeded his authority by making raid in the godown of the petitioners for collecting samples of the several spices and other grocery items, which were sent for chemical examination. It was submitted that the entire procedure followed by the informant in the present case is barred by Section 42 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006. Section 42 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 provides as under:- -3- “42. Procedure for launching prosecution.- (1) The Food Safety Officer shall be responsible for inspection of food business, drawing samples and sending them to Food Analyst for analysis. (2) The Food Analyst after receiving the sample from the Food Safety Officer shall analyse the sample and send the analysis report mentioning method of sampling and analysis within fourteen days to Designated Officer with a copy to Commissioner of Food Safety. (3) The Designated Officer after scrutiny of the report of Food Analyst shall decide as to whether the contravention is punishable with imprisonment or fine only and in the case of contravention punishable with imprisonment, he shall send his recommendations within fourteen days to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution. (4) The Commissioner of Food Safety shall, if he so deems fit, decide, within the period prescribed by the Central Government, as per the gravity of offence, whether the matter be referred to,- (a) a court of ordinary jurisdiction in case of offences punishable with imprisonment for a term up to three years; or (b) a Special Court in case of offences punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years where such Special Court is established and in case no Special Court is established, such cases shall be tried by a court of ordinary jurisdiction. (5) The Commissioner of Food Safety shall communicate his decision to the Designated Officer and the concerned Food Safety Officer who shall launch prosecution before courts of ordinary jurisdiction or Special Court, as the case may be; and such communication shall also be sent to the purchaser if the sample was taken under Section 40.” 8. From the perusal of above provisions of law, it is crystal clear that the Food Safety officer appointed or authorized under Section 37 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 can draw the sample of food and send the same for analysis to the Food Analyst within a specified period of time. The Designated Officer appointed under Section 36 of the Act can make a scrutiny of the report of the Food Analyst and decide whether the prosecution can be launched against the delinquent person. 9. Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned AC to AAG-IA has opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submitted that the informant had entered into the godown of the petitioners where some altercation took place. 10. Considering the facts of this case, prima-facie it appears that godown of the petitioners was raided by the informant to collect samples and food items, for which he was not authorized. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts, the entire criminal proceeding of Chirkunda P.S. Case No.159 of 2023 stands quashed. 12. This application is allowed. 13. Pending, I.A., if any, stands also disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J.) Jay/-