1 criappln No.777-2024 IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 777 OF 2024 Akhtar Beg Ayub Beg, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o. Qureshi Colony, Bhokardan, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. …. Applicant VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Phulambri Police Station, Tq. Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Mohamad Farid Abdul Rashid Siddiqui, Age : 34 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o. Food Safety Administration, (M.S.), Gat No.19, Kanchanwadi, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. …. Respondents .... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Avinash R. Borulkar APP for Respondents : Mr. G.A. Kulkarni .… CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. Dated : 06th August 2025 ORDER [PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] :- 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant as well as learned APP for the respondents. 2025:BHC-AUG:24023-DB 2 criappln No.777-2024 2. This is an application for quashing the First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as “the F.I.R.”) and charge-sheet in R.C.C. No.88 of 2021, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”), pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad. The said proceedings arise out of Crime bearing No.0139 of 2020, registered with Phulambri Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad, dated 14.05.2020, for the offences punishable under Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the FSSA Act") and Sections 188, 273 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.P.C.”). 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant pointed out the report dated 14.05.2020, in which respondent No.2/informant averred that he is Food Safety Officer at Aurangabad. The Commissioner, Food Safety and Drugs Administration, Government of Maharashtra under Section 30(2)(a) of the FSSA Act prohibited the manufacture, storage, sale, and distribution of gutkha, pan masala, and other tobacco products containing areca nut in the State of Maharashtra. 3 criappln No.777-2024 4. The informant further averred in his report that on 14.05.2020, at about 09.30 a.m., Police Station Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad, communicated him that they had seized prohibited Gutkha, tobacco, etc. from one person. Accordingly, he went to the Police Station Phulambri at 12.00 noon. P.S.I. Samratsingh Rajput informed him that P.S.I. Vivek G. Jadhav, from the Office of Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad Rural and other police staff stopped a truck i.e. TATA 407 bearing No. MH-04-EL-7236 and upon inspection in the presence of panchas, found prohibited scented tobacco, gutkha, etc. They seized the said articles and drawn up a panchnama to that effect. These are stored in the police station. They shown the seized article to him and upon inspection, gunny bags of prohibited scented tobacco and gutkha were found. The total value of said articles was Rs.22,08,000/-. He seized one packet of gutkha for chemical analysis. PSI Vivek Jadhav inquired with the driver of vehicle. That time, he said that the said articles belong to Raju Pandit More and Santosh Tejrao Jadhav and it was brought from the applicant. Accordingly, he lodged the report alleging that the said articles are dangerous to the health which may cause injury to the person who consumes it. 5. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the 4 criappln No.777-2024 applicant is falsely implicated in this crime. General and vague allegations are made against him. He has no concern with the present crime. Initially, the name of the present applicant is not mentioned in the FIR. Later on, his name has been added in the FIR. CA report is not produced on record to show that the seized articles are prohibited. Neither the procedure under Section 42 of the FSSA Act nor the provisions of IPC have been complied for launching prosecution against the applicant. It is lastly prayed that the application may kindly be allowed. 6. Learned APP for the respondents strongly opposed the application and submitted that there is strong evidence against the applicant that he was found in possession of prohibited scented tobacco, gutkha, etc. which is unsafe for human consumption. His name is mentioned in the F.I.R. During Covid-19 lock-down, the applicant disobeyed the order lawfully promulgated by a public servant and caused obstruction, annoyance or injury to others. It is lastly prayed to reject the application. 7. We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly, the report, seizure panchanama of the articles and statements of witnesses. 5 criappln No.777-2024 8. As per Section 42(3) of the FSSA Act, 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 must submit his recommendations within fourteen days to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution. On perusal of the record, it appears that no such recommendations were sent for sanctioning prosecution against the applicant as the punishment prescribed under Section 59 is imprisonment. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 59 of the FSSA Act is not attributed against the applicant. 9. It would be relevant to rely upon the judgment in the case of Ram Nath Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in, (2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 502, in which the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph No.5 held as under:- "5. Incidentally, the decision in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2010 SCC Online All 1708, is the subject-matter of challenge by the State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeals Nos. 476- 478 of 2012. In this case, FIR was registered against the respondent on 11-8-2010, alleging the commission 6 criappln No.777-2024 of offences under Sections 272 and 273 IPC. The allegation was of adulteration in the cold drinks manufactured by the respondent. The view taken in Pepsico was that, from 29-7-2010, when FSSA came into force, the provisions thereof would have an overriding effect over the food-related laws, including Sections 272 and 273 IPC. Further, it was held that the police has no authority or jurisdiction to investigate a case under FSSA." 10. Further, to invoke Section 188 of the IPC, there must be disobedience to the order duly promulgated by a public servant. Neither in the charge-sheet nor in the report, there is mentioning of such order promulgated by a public servant. No such order has been produced on record which shows that it was in force at the time of commission of the alleged offence. The essential ingredients of Sections 188 and 273 of the IPC are not establishing to the present applicant. 11. Furthermore, as per the law laid down in the case of Ram Nath Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra), a complaint must be filed in the Court by the authority and when an special Act is there, the provisions of IPC cannot be invoked. 7 criappln No.777-2024 12. Considering the facts of the case, the law laid down in Ram Nath Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra) and the reasons stated above, we are inclined to exercise our powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the report and charge-sheet in the interest of justice to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court against the applicant. The application therefore, deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order. ORDER I) The application is allowed. II) The proceedings in R.C.C. No.88 of 2021, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad, arising out of Crime bearing No.0139 of 2020, registered with Phulambri Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad, dated 14.05.2020, for the offences punishable under Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Sections 188, 273 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, stands quashed against the applicant. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE asd