Calcutta High Court: A single bench comprising of Subhendu Samanta,* J., held that the police, though not being Food Safety Officers under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (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.
Brief Facts
The instant matter involves three criminal revision applications filed by the petitioners seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against them under Sections 272, 273, 420, and 120B of the Penal Code, 1860 (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.
Parties' Contentions
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.
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.
Law Point — Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
-
Section 38: Powers of Food Safety Officer
-
Section 41: Power of Search, seizure, investigation, prosecution and procedure thereof
-
Section 42: Procedure for Launching prosecution
Issue 1: Whether the police, not being Food Safety Officers under the FSA Act, are empowered to investigate offences related to food safety?
The Court referred to State of Maharshtra v. Sayyed Hasan and Sayyed Subhan, (2019) 18 SCC 145, where the Supreme Court held that when there is no specific bar in the special enactment, subject to Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, the trial and conviction of offenders under the IPC are not barred.
The Court stated that the “principle u/s 26 of General Clauses Act, investigation by the police is not legally bad and petitioners shall not be put into jeopardy for continuance of the proceedings.”
The Court observed that while the police are not specifically empowered to investigate offences under the FSS Act, they are not debarred from investigating offences under the IPC. Thus, the investigation conducted by the police under the provisions of the criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) for the offence punishable under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC is deemed maintainable.
Issue 2 – Whether the quashing petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the CrPC are maintainable, considering the charge sheet has already been submitted?
The Court observed that the petitioners filed quashing applications under Section 482 CrPC. after the police had already submitted charge sheets in all three cases and at this stage, it cannot assess the merit of the materials collected by the police during the investigation. The court emphasized that quashing applications are not maintainable when the police have submitted charge sheets, and the accused can argue their case during the framing of charges before the Magistrate.
The Court held that “the application for quashing of FIR of a Criminal Case is not at all maintainable when the police report has submitted charge sheet u/s 173 of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate after conclusion of investigation.”
The Court further cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35, here it was held that at the stage of the FIR, only the allegations are to be considered, but after the investigation is concluded and the charge sheet is filed, the court must consider the materials and evidence collected during the investigation, and reiterated that it cannot act as a trial court and cannot appreciate evidence at the quashing stage.
Court's Verdict
The Court dismissed all the three criminal revisional applications seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings and deemed them groundless. The Court further held that any pending connected applications are also disposed of, and the order of stay previously granted during the pendency of the criminal revisions is vacated.
[Sushil Kr. Gupta v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2217, order dated 02-08-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Subhendu Samanta
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Mr. Anmupam Dasadhikari, Mr. Apalak Basu, Ms. Snehal Seth, Mr. Debarka Guha and others, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Ms. Debjani Sahu and others, Counsel for the Respondent/State
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
