Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

  • In Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, the Gauhati High Court has held that only a Food Inspector has the authority to investigate a commission of offense under the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act).
  • The background of this case is that a company (petitioner) was granted a license to manufacture pan-masala, by a competent authority under the FSS Act.
  • Pan-masala is classified as a food product under Food Safety and Standard Regulation. 
  • An FIR was lodged against Md. Imran Mohammed Hanif u/s 188, 272, 273, 328 IPC for possession of Rajnigandha pan-masala and scented Tobacco and other pan-masalas.
  • During the investigation, stocks of pan-masala and tobacco were recovered from the accused.
  • The petitioner Company was issued several notices for production of required documents u/s 91 CrPC and the same was complied with by the petitioner. 
  • The petitioner alleged that the investigating officer visited their factory premises along with other police officials without any search warrant and forcibly seized the entire machinery and also sealed the factory's gate. 
  • The petitioner contended that the seized pan-masala was worth more than a crore and was ready to be sent for packaging. Since the pan-masala contains hygroscopic substances which attract moisture, the petitioner has suffered huge loss. 
  • The Court observed that the license issued to the petitioner was valid and they were authorized to manufacture and sell pan-masala. 
  • The Court further observed that there was no statutory prohibition for the manufacturing of pan-masala in the State of Assam.
  • The Hon'ble Court held that the I/O neither had the jurisdiction nor the authority to investigate this matter. 
  • Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioner's fundamental right to carry out a lawful business has been violated and therefore, directed the authorities to release all the seized articles and machinery.
  • Furthermore, the Court directed respondent No. 2 to pay Rs. 2 Lakhs to the petitioner. 
"Loved reading this piece by Megha Nautiyal?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  146  Report



Comments
img