Judgment:
1. Present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report registered at case crime No. 85 of 2010, under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, at police station Jamunapar, District Mathura.
2. Brief background of the case is that Food Inspector (Nagar) Mathura, on 25.02.2010 at about 10.15. A.M., after introducing himself, inspected the shop of the petitioner and asked him to show the licence. During the course of visit, Food Inspector purchased Laddoos, took sample and sealed the same. Said sample was sent to Public Analyst, Lucknow. In the said sample on examination, non-permitted synthetic colour (Auramine) was found which was injurious to public health and not fit for consumption. Under the orders of the Commissioner, Food and Medicine Administration, U.P. directives were given for lodging First Information Report, and accordingly, First Information Report was lodged. After the First Information Report has been lodged, present writ petition has been filed.
3. Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case, the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, have been flouted with impunity, as such the F.I.R. lodged is liable to be quashed and further directives be issued to proceed as per the provisions contained in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
4. Countering the said submission, learned A.G.A., on the other hand, contended that in the present case offence under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was committed along with the offence under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code; and once cognizable offence had been disclosed, then the police had every right to investigate the matter.
5. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position, which is emerging in the present case is that F.I.R. had been lodged against the petitioner under Sections 272 and 273 read with Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Sections 272 and 272 I.P.C. read as under:
272. Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale.- Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such articles as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment or either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
273. Sale of noxious food or drink.- Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment or either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
6. In application to the State of U.P. in Sections 272, 273, 274, 275 and 276, for the words, 'shall be punished with imprisonment or either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both', in its place, the words 'shall be punished with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine' have been substituted, and a proviso has also been added thereto, to the effect, that the court may, for adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment which is less than the imprisonment for life.
7. Once offence is disclosed under the provisions of Indian Penal Code read with the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, then the matter has to be dealt with as per provisions as contained under Sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Lodging of the F.I.R. And investigation is not at all prohibited under law, and trial of offence has to be dealt with strictly, in accordance with law. Such stage has not yet arrived. In such a situation lodging of F.I.R. cannot be faulted on any score and it cannot be termed to be bad merely because Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 confers valuable right on the accused to move application within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report from the Public Analyst to get the sample analyzed in the Central Food Laboratory. All such issues can be raised by the petitioner during trial. In such a situation, there is hardly any scope of interference with the impugned F.I.R.
8. At last prayer has been made for direction for quick disposal of bail application. However, considering the facts, it is directed that in case applicant appears before the court concerned within 30 days from today and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of by the courts below in view of Smt. Amrawati and Anr. v. State of U.P. : 2005 Cr.L.J. 755. The Full Bench of this Court has held in the aforementioned case;
1. Even if a cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR or complaint the arrest of the accused is not a must, rather the police officer should be guided by the the decision of the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. : 1994 Cr.L.J. 1981 before deciding whether to make an arrest or not.
2. The High Court should ordinarily not direct any Subordinate Court to decide the bail application the same day, as that would be interfering with the judicial discretion of the court hearing the bail application. However, as stated above, when the bail application is under Section 437 Cr.P.C. ordinarily the Magistrate should himself decide the bail application the same day, and if he decides in a rare and exceptional case not to decide it on the same day, he must record his reasons in writing. As regards the application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. it is in the discretion of the learned Sessions Judge, considering the facts and circumstances whether to decide the bail application the same day or not, and it is also in his discretion to grant interim bail the same day subject to the final decision on the bail application later.
9. The above view has been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. on 23.3.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2009.