Case Law Details
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra (Gauhati High Court)
The provision of Section 41 and 42 of the FSS Act, make special provision as regard how investigation needs to be carried out whenever there is a reasonable doubt about commission of the offence relating to food item by the authority. Section 41 prescribes that Food and Safety Officer have the power to search and seizure of food articles and Section 42 prescribes that the Food and Safety Officer is responsible for inspection of food business, drawing samples and sending the same to the food analyst for analysis and thereafter can launch the prosecution in appropriate case. The above provision clearly indicates that only the Food Inspector can carry out such investigation, inquiry and can launch prosecution to determine the article whether same is adulterated. Further, in view of the provision of Section 4(2) of CrPC, all offences under any other law shall be dealt with in accordance with the enactment regulating the manner of investigation and trial etc. and as such the FSS being a complete statute, has an overriding effect as Special Act to deal with such food items.
In view of the above legal proposition, it can be held that the investigation so far carried by the I/O particularly, so far as regard the present petitioner is beyond the jurisdiction under law. He was also not bothered to apprise the court of the competent jurisdiction in Guwahati seeking permission for such search and seizure nor any intimation was forwarded, which has vitiated entire search and seizure and liable to be interfered into.
The petitioner herein without there being any criminal culpability has been thrown to utter hardship and inconvenience by seizure of building as well as the article valued more than crores of rupees thereby the petitioner has been compelled to run a legal battle consuming time, energy and heavy cost while continuing such litigation before the High Court. Although, initially the petitioner was allowed interim relief at the time of filing of this petition, but being not satisfied with the order, the petitioner carried the matter to the appellate court wherein the appellate court allowed the petitioner to take possession of the manufactured goods subject to giving bank guarantee of rupees one crore. The fundamental rights of the petitioner to carry out the lawful business has been hampered for such illegal conduct on the part of the investigating officer.
All the points formulated above answered accordingly. Impugned seizure list dated 09.03.2022 prepared by the respondent no.2 is hereby quashed and set aside with a direction to release all the seized article to the petitioner forthwith, if not released yet. The Bank Guarantee is to be revoked immediately.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
