Judgment 1 J-APL No.1654.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1654 OF 2026 Kadar Gaffar Musani, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Indira Chowk, Ram Mandir Road, Kalamb, Tq. Kalamb, Distt. Yavatmal. …. APPLICANT // VERSUS // 1) State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Kalamb Police Station, Tq. Kalamb & Distt. Yavatmal. 2) Food Safety Officer, Food and Drug Administration (M.S.), Yavatmal. …. N ON-APPLICANTS _____________________________________________________________ Mr. S. A. Mohta, Advocate for applicant. Mr. H. D. Futane, Additional Public Prosecutor for non- applicants/State. _____________________________________________________________ CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 11, 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.340/2021, dated 23.06.2021, registered with Police Station, Kalamb, District Yavatmal for the offences punishable under 2026:BHC-NAG:12430 Judgment 2 J-APL No.1654.2026.odt Sections 188, 269, 270, 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the “IPC”) and Sections 26(2)(i), 27(2)(e) and 30(2)(a) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short the “FSSA”) and consequent chargesheet No.121/2021, dated 27.08.2021 registered as Regular Criminal Case No.62/2021 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalamb, Distt. Yavatmal. 3. The FIR indicates that on 23.06.2021, on receipt of secret information, Police Sub-Inspector Sarita Markam along with other police staff and panchas visited the shop of Kadar Gaffar Musani at Indira Chowk, Kalamb where the applicant was present. After conducting a search in his shop, the contraband scented tobacco was found stored for sale. The said contraband scented tobacco was seized in presence of panchas. Therefore, on the complaint of Ghansham Panjabrao Dande, Food Safety Officer, Food and Drugs Administration, Yavatmal, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against the present applicant. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the police ought not to have registered the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 270, 272 and 273 of the IPC; particularly when there are very exhaustive, substantive and procedural provisions in the FSSA for dealing with offences concerning unsafe Judgment 3 J-APL No.1654.2026.odt 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 188, 269, 270, 272 and 273 of the IPC as the subject is covered by the FSSA. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not dispute this position and submitted that suitable order be passed in this matter. 6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicants-State. 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 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 Judgment 4 J-APL No.1654.2026.odt 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 188, 269, 270, 272 and 273 of the IPC is not sustainable. 9. So far as Sections 26(2)(i), 27(2)(e) and 30(2)(a) of the FSSA are concerned, the FSSA prescribes a special procedure for launching prosecution under Section 42. 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. Judgment 5 J-APL No.1654.2026.odt (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.” 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 Judgment 6 J-APL No.1654.2026.odt 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. 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.340/2021, dated 23.06.2021, registered with Police Station, Kalamb, District Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 270, 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 26(2)(i), 27(2) (e) and 30(2)(a) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and consequent chargesheet No.121/2021, dated 27.08.2021 registered as Regular Criminal Case Judgment 7 J-APL No.1654.2026.odt No.62/2021 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalamb, Distt. Yavatmal, are hereby quashed and set aside qua the present applicant. 14. The criminal application is disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 19/09/2026 14:44:25