Judgment 1 J-APL No.1590.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1590 OF 2026 Jaisukhlal S/o Ambaram Thakar, Aged 55 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Vivekanand Ward, Ballarpur, Tq. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur. …. APPLICANT // VERSUS // State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Sindewahi Police Station, Distt. Chandrapur. …. N ON-APPLICANT _____________________________________________________________ Mr. S. A. Mohta, Advocate for applicant. Mr. M. J. Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for non- applicant. _____________________________________________________________ CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The applicant seeks quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) No.393/2026, dated 19.05.2026, registered with Police Station, Sindewahi, District Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 223 and 275 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for 2026:BHC-NAG:13093 Judgment 2 J-APL No.1590.2026.odt short the “BNS”) as well as Sections 26(2)(i), 26(2)(iv), 30(2)(a) and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short the “FSSA”). 3. The FIR indicates that on 18.05.2026, the complainant Nilesh Chirkutaji Mahatme, Police Officer, Local Crime Branch, Chandrapur received a secret information that one Shyam Parmanand Chhatrawani has stored the contraband scented tobacco in his shop i.e. Shyam Agency, Sindewahi for sell which is banned in the State of Maharashtra. On the tip of said information, a raid was conducted in the said shop by the complainant along with other police officials, where co-accused Shyam Parmanand Chhatrawani was present. During the search contraband scented tobacco was found in a box valued at Rs.37,225/-. The said articles were seized in presence of the panchas. When the police questioned the co-accused regarding purchase and supply of the said contraband articles, the co-accused informed the police authority that he has procured the said contraband scented tobacco from the present applicant. Therefore, the present applicant was also made an accused in this case. On complaint of Nitesh Chirkutaji Mahatme, Police Constable, Member of raiding party, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against co- accused Shyam Parmanand Chhatrawani and the present applicant. Judgment 3 J-APL No.1590.2026.odt 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicants-State. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the police ought not to have registered the offences punishable under Sections 223 and 275 of the IPC; particularly when there are very exhaustive, substantive and procedural provisions in the FSSA for dealing with offences concerning unsafe food. Therefore, in view of the decision in the case of Ram Nath vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2024) 3 SCC 502, the FIR cannot be lodged under Sections 223 and 275 of the IPC as the subject is covered by the FSSA. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not dispute this position and submitted that suitable order be passed in this matter. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath (supra) while considering the provisions of the FSSA and the IPC in para Nos.26, 27, 28 and 29 has held as under : “26. Thus, there are very exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions in the FSSA for dealing with offences concerning unsafe food. 27. In this context, we must consider the effect of Section 89 FSSA. Section 89 reads thus : “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 Judgment 4 J-APL No.1590.2026.odt instrument having effect of virtue of any law other than this Act.” The title of the Section indeed indicates that the intention is to give an overriding effect to the FSSA over all ‘food-related laws’. However, in the main section, there is no such restriction confined to ‘food-related laws’, and it is provided that provisions of the FSSA shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. So, the section indicates that an overriding effect is given to the provisions of the FSSA over any other law. 28. The settled law is that if the main section is unambiguous, the aid of the title of the section or its marginal note cannot be taken to interpret the same. Only if it is ambiguous, the title of the section or the marginal note can be looked into to understand the intention of the legislature. 29. Therefore, the main Section clearly gives overriding effect to the provisions of the FSSA over any other law in so far as the law applies to the aspects of food in the field covered by the FSSA.” 8. From the legal position enunciated above, it is now settled that the offence cannot be registered under the provisions of the IPC in the cases which are covered under the FSSA. Therefore, the FIR lodged by the police under Sections 223 and 275 of the IPC is not sustainable. 9. So far as Sections 26(2)(i), 26(2)(iv), 30(2)(a) and 59 of the FSSA are concerned, the FSSA prescribes a special procedure for launching prosecution under Section 42. Judgment 5 J-APL No.1590.2026.odt 10. It is pertinent to quote the provision of Section 42 of the FSSA, which reads as follows: “ 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.” Judgment 6 J-APL No.1590.2026.odt 11. Thus, on a plain reading of Section 42, it is evident that the designated officer is required to make a recommendation to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution. After receipt of sanction, the concerned Food Safety Officer is required to launch prosecution before the concerned court. 12. Considering the above, the initiation of prosecution under the provisions of FSSA through police report is not permissible. In other words, the offences alleged in the FIR are non-cognizable by the police therefore, I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 13. It also appears that the entire case of the prosecution relies on the confessional statement of co-accused- Shyam Parmanand Chhatrawani. There is no other material against the present applicant. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that statement of a co- accused cannot be relied upon without any substantive material against the other co-accused. The statement of co-accused can only be relied upon to lend assurance. It is only one of the elements for consideration amongst all the other facts to be proved in a particular case, and therefore, such confession must be supported by other evidence before it is taken into consideration. Judgment 7 J-APL No.1590.2026.odt 14. In the present case, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the confessional statement of co-accused – Shyam Parmanand Chhatrawani to establish the involvement of the present applicant in commission of the offence, i.e. seller of the prohibited contraband articles. 15. As stated above, for relying on the statement of the co- accused, two conditions must be fulfilled. Firstly, the accused who made the confessional statement must make an inculpatory statement implicating himself as well as the co-accused against whom the statement is being used. Secondly, the said statement can be relied upon by the Court only to lend assurance/corroboration to the other available evidence. 16. In the present case, except for the statement of co- accused–Shyam Parmanand Chhatrawani, there is no other material whatsoever against the present applicant showing his involvement in commission of the alleged offences. There is no statement of co- accused– Shyam Parmanand Chhatrawani admitting his guilt. It is only upon enquiry by the police, that co-accused–Shyam Parmanand Chhatrawani stated that the present applicant was the seller of the said contraband articles. Thus, co-accused–Shyam Parmanand Judgment 8 J-APL No.1590.2026.odt Chhatrawani, while making such statement, did not make any inculpatory statement implicating himself in the offence along with the present applicant. Therefore, the said piece of evidence, even otherwise, cannot be relied upon. 17. Undisputedly, except the statement of co-accused – Shyam Parmanand Chhatrawani that the present applicant is the seller of the contraband articles, there is no other material available on record to show the direct involvement of the applicant in the crime. Even if the material relied upon by the prosecution in the entire FIR against the present applicant is accepted, no conviction can be secured against the present applicant. 18. In view of the above, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : (i) The Criminal Application is allowed. (ii) FIR No.393/2026, dated 19.05.2026, registered with Police Station, Sindewahi, District Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 223 and 275 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well as Sections Judgment 9 J-APL No.1590.2026.odt 26(2)(i), 26(2)(iv), 30(2)(a) and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, is hereby quashed and set aside, qua the present applicant. 19. The criminal application is disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 01/10/2026 19:06:11