{"id":298692,"date":"2023-08-06T11:00:25","date_gmt":"2023-08-06T05:30:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=298692"},"modified":"2023-08-07T15:47:14","modified_gmt":"2023-08-07T10:17:14","slug":"calcutta-high-court-examines-validity-of-police-investigation-under-fss-act-scc-blog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/06\/calcutta-high-court-examines-validity-of-police-investigation-under-fss-act-scc-blog\/","title":{"rendered":"FSSAI | Can Police, not being Food Safety Officers, investigate food safety matters punishable under IPC? Calcutta High Court examines"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Calcutta High Court:<\/span> A single bench comprising of Subhendu Samanta,*<\/span> J., held that the police, though not being Food Safety Officers under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006<\/a> (FSS Act), are not barred from investigating offences punishable under the IPC, including Sections 272 and 273. The Court further held that the application for quashing of FIR is not maintainable when the police report has submitted charge sheet before the Magistrate after conclusion of investigation.<\/p>\n

Brief Facts<\/p>\n

The instant matter involves three criminal revision applications filed by the petitioners seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against them under Sections 272<\/a>, 273<\/a>, 420<\/a>, and 120B<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC), pending before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. In all three cases, a significant amount of alleged adulterated and spurious food items were seized from the possession of the petitioners, and the police conducted the investigation.<\/p>\n

Parties' Contentions<\/p>\n

The petitioners contended that the criminal proceeding is an abuse of the court process and violates the Special Act since the police have no authority to investigate any offence under the FSS Act. The petitioners contended that since no adulterated or spurious food items were seized from their premises, the proceeding under the FSS Act would not be sustainable, even if challans were taken from different places.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, the State opposes the petitioners’ arguments and contended that the police have seized a substantial amount of adulterated food items from the possession of the petitioners, and multiple seizures have been made at different places. The State contended that the petitioners also misbranded spurious food items (ghee) and cheated the public by selling these adulterated items. The State argues against quashing the proceeding at this stage, because the investigation by the police resulted in a charge sheet with sufficient evidence indicating the petitioners’ involvement in the alleged offences.<\/p>\n

Law Point — <\/span>Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006<\/p>\n