[2025:RJ-JP:39798] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5783/2025 1. Vijay Kumar Shah S/o Sh. Shantilal Shah, Aged About 69 Years, Former Nominee of Zydus Wellness Limited R/o Flat No. 4, Rajpath Apartment, Mahalaxmi Colony, Near Railway Crossing, Maninagar (East), Ahmedabad, Gujarat- 380008. 2. Roopchand Sharma S/o Late Sh. Sitaram Sharma, Aged About 53 Years, Proprietor of M/s Surbhi Enterprises, R/o 141-C, Govind Nagar West, Amer Road, Jaipur - 302002. 3. Pradeep Gupta, S/o Ramji Lal Gupta, Aged About 68 Years, Proprietor of Vipul Marketing, R/o 15-B, Tagari Wali Gali, Govind Nagar, Ramganj, Ajmer-305003. 4. Zydus Wellness Limited, through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Santosh Mane, Having its Registered Address at Zydus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536 Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Near Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India- 382481 ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan, through Food Inspector, Office of Joint Director, Medical And Health Services, Zone Ajmer. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 26/09/2025 1. Petitioners have invoked inherent and extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court envisaged under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6794/2014 titled State Vs. Rakesh Khandelwal pending before the Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pre-conception [2025:RJ-JP:39798] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5783/2025] and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT), Ajmer in respect of offences under Sections 7 & 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. At the outset, counsel for petitioner does not dispute that the proceedings of present criminal case have reached to an advance stage and presently pending at the stage of recording the statements of accused persons. Charges have already been framed in the alleged offences and prosecution evidence has also been concluded. 3. At this stage, counsel for petitioner sought to raise a legal issue that the sample of Nutralite Butter, which has been alleged to be mis-branded was seized by the authorities on 29.07.2010 and on that time, relevant provision of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) have come in operation, yet the criminal case was registered for offences under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. His submission is that proceedings, at the most, could have been initiated as per the provisions and procedure envisaged under FSSA where the only punishment is fine. 4. Prima facie, it is not in dispute that the Prevention of Food Adulteration has been obsolete/ deleted w.e.f. 05.08.2011. 5. Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Section 89 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which is being reproduced hereunder:- “89. Overriding effect of this Act over all other food related laws.- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.” [2025:RJ-JP:39798] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5783/2025] 6. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manik Hiri Jhangiani Vs. State of M.P. [2023 INSC 1078]. 7. Having argued the petition for some time, facing the situation that the issue has not been raised before the trial Court and the trial of present criminal case has reached to an advance stage. 8. Counsel for petitioners seeks liberty to raise such a legal issue before the trial Court itself and prayed that if such issue is taken, trial Court may consider and decide the same after considering the provision of Section 89 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and ratio decidendi expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manik Hiri Jhangiani (supra). 9. In view of above, without raising any opinion on merits/ demerits, instant petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to raise such a legal issue before the trial Court. Needless to issue any direction since the trial Court is expected to consider and dealt with such issue at the time of deciding the criminal case finally on merits in accordance with law. 10. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /240