Telangana High Court
Deepak Agarwal vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 20 June, 2024
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6681 AND 7309 OF 2019
ORDER:
As both these petitions are filed by the accused in the same crime,
they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Petitioners are seeking to quash the proceedings against them in
Crime No.164 of 2019 on the file of Dabeerpura Police Station,
Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 272, 273, 406 and
420 of IPC.
3. Heard Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for
petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
1st respondent. None appeared for the 2nd respondent.
4. The Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, Chanchalguda,
Hyderabad, has lodged a complaint on 19.10.2019 against the petitioners
stating that the petitioners, being the Contractors for supply of food and
ration items to the Jail, have supplied adulterated Sunflower oil.
5. The main ground urged by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners
is that when there is special enactment to deal with adulteration of food
items, namely, the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA Act), no
prosecution can be launched under any other law including IPC and
2 JS, J
Crl.P.Nos.6681 & 7309 of 2019
Cr.P.C. To the said proposition, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Nath v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others 1, wherein, it is held that there cannot be simultaneous
prosecution under IPC and FSSA. He has also relied on the judgments of
Allahabad High Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P. and
another2 and in M/s Pepsico India Holding (Pvt) Limited and another
v. State of U.P. and others 3 and also in the judgment of Patna High Court
in Dharmendra Kumar @ Raja v. The State of Bihar Through The
Director4, wherein, it is held that after coming into force of the provisions
of FSSA Act by notification, dated 29.07.2010, the authorities can take
action only under the FSSA Act as it postulates an overriding effect over
all other food related laws. It is also held that the provisions of Sections
272 and 273 of IPC cannot be invoked in the matters relating to
adulteration of food. All these judgments are applicable to the case of the
petitioners herein.
6. In view of the above law on the subject, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted under the
provisions of IPC since the FSSA Act has got overriding effect on general
laws with regard to adulteration of food.
(2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 502
2013 SCC OnLine All 13094
2010 SCC OnLine all 1708
Case No.119 of 2016, Dated 08.04.2016
3 JS, J
Crl.P.Nos.6681 & 7309 of 2019
7. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that
liberty may be granted for them to prosecute the petitioner/accused under
the provisions of FSSA Act, it is to be seen that under Section 77 of the
FSSA Act, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under the said Act
after the expiry of the period of one year from the date of commission of
an offence, which can be extended up to three years for reasons to be
recorded by the Commissioner of Food Safety. In the present case the date
of complaint is 19.10.2019, and almost four years have lapsed from the
date of complaint. Therefore, no prosecution can be initiated against the
petitioner at this belated point of time in view of the bar contained under
Section 77 of the Act.
8. Accordingly, both these criminal petitions are allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.164 of 2019 of P.S.
Dabeerpura, Hyderabad, are quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date:20.06.2024
Ksk
