Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suraj Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 April, 2026
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11300
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N.BHATT
ON THE 23 OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41536 OF 2019
SURAJ JAIN
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Lucky Jain, advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Tarun Pagare, public prosecutor for the respondent/State.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the
petitioner has prayed for quashing the FIR registered at Police Station Unhel,
District Ujjain vide Crime No.226 of 2019 for offences punishable under
Section 420 of the IPC and Sections 50, 51 and 58 of Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006.
2. As per the prosecution, on 24.07.2019 Firm Sidhi Milk Dairy of which
the petitioner is the owner was inspected during which it was found that he is
preparing and selling impure/adulterated mava for human consumption. On
the basis of the inspection in which it was found that instead of making pure
mava from milk, the petitioner is making adulterated mava and selling the
same for earning higher profits, a complaint was lodged by the Food Safety
Officer with the Police on 17.09.2019 on the basis of which investigation was
conducted and FIR has been registered against the petitioner for offences
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 24-04-2026
18:41:31
2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11300
punishable under section 420 of the IPC and Sections 50, 51 and 58 of Food
Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
3. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner on the ground that
even if the entire allegations as levelled against the petitioner are accepted to
be true at their face value,3 no offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made
out against him. There is no prima facie material to show that the petitioner
deceived or cheated any person by his act of preparing adulterated mava. The
essential ingredients for invocation of Section 420 of the IPC are not
available against the petitioner even as per the case of the prosecution. The
allegationi against the petitioner is of preparing adulterated food item.
Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for petitioner on the decision of
this Court in case of Dinesh Sahu Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
criminal revision No. 1462/2015 decided on 3.10.2017.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there
is sufficient material available on record to proceed with against the
petitioner. In view of the allegations levelled against him the offences under
Section 420 of the IPC are very well made out and it cannot be said that there
is no ground whatsoever to proceed against the petitioner. The case is still
pending and at this stage FIR cannot be quashed in view of which the petition
deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and have perused the record.
6. For constituting an offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC
there should be someone who should be deceived by fraudulently or
dishonestly inducing him to deliver any property to any person or to make,
alter or destroy the whole or any part of valuable security or anything which
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 24-04-2026
18:41:31
3
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11300
is signed or sealed and which is capable of being 4 converted into a valuable
security. In the present case there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner
induced any person to deliver any property to any person or made him alter or
destroy the whole or any part of valuable security or anything which is signed
or sealed and is capable of being converted into a valuable security. It is not
the case of prosecution that someone was induced to purchase or procure the
spurious mava and that such person on the basis of such inducement parted
away with any property or valuable security. In absence of any such
allegation the offence under Section 420 of the IPC against the petitioner
cannot be said to be made out.
7. In regard to the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly
relied upon the decision of this Court in Dinesh Sahu (supra) in which it has
been held as under :-
“8. Cheating has been defined in section 415 of the IPC which reads as
under :-
415. Cheating – Whoever by deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to
any other person, or to consent that any person shall retain any
property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or
omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived, and which act or omissioncauses or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property,
is said to “cheat”.
9. To constitute the offence of cheating within the meaning of
section 420 IPC, somebody should be deceived by being fraudulently or
dishonestly induced to deliver any property to any person or to make,
alter or destroy the whole or any part of valuable security, or anything
which is 5 signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into
a valuable security.
10. In the instant case there is nothing to indicate that the petitioners had
induced any person to deliver any property to any person or to make,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 24-04-2026
18:41:31
4
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11300
alter or destroy the whole or any part of valuable security or anything
which is signed or sealed and is capable of being converted into a
valuable security. It is not the case of prosecution that somebody was
induced to purchase or procure the spurious ghee and that such person
indeed on the basis of such inducement, parted away with any property
or valuable security. In absence of any such allegation, the offence under
section 420 IPC against the petitioners cannot prima facie be made out.
14. Reference can be made to the decision of this court in the matter of
Bansilal Agarwal Vs. State of M.P. (M.Cr.C.No.8629/2009) Order dated
3.2.2010 wherein following observations have been made in para 7 :-
“7. On consideration of the rival contention of both the counsel it is
pertinent to note that the police had also registered the case against the
applicants under the National Security Act and that registration has
been challenged before the Division Bench of this Court as Writ
Petition No.12015/09, wherein the Division Bench of this Court while
ascertaining the legal ground for the detention of the applicant
Bansilal under the National Security Act came to the conclusion that
prima facie if some adulterated food articleswere found in the
premises of the applicant then certainly on that basis the case under
section 420 IPC cannot be registered when the act for storing the
adulterated articles has been specifically punishable under the Special
Act. It is useful to quote the relevant para of the judgment passed by
the Division Bench, which reads here as under :- “The list of the cases
registered against him nowhere shows that any of the case is in 6
relation to misbranding or trying to sell the material manufactured by
him in some different name. True it is that in some of the cases
offences under Section 420 of the Indian penal Code have been
registered. Though the question is not directly before us, but we will
have to observe that such registration in itself would not be sufficient
because the First Information Reports do nowhere say that who were
cheated and how an ofence punishable under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code is made out. We are of the prima facie opinion that
offences punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are
not made out because there is no material on record to show that
somebody was cheated. It is nobody’s case that the manufacturer or
supppliers of ghee persuaded somebody to part with their property by
telling them that the petitioners would be selling them pure ghee and
by that further pursuaded them that they would be getting pure ghee.
There is nothing on record to show or suggest that somebody everSignature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 24-04-2026
18:41:31
5NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11300
made any complaint that in absence of such a persuasion, he would
not have purchased ghee nor would have parted with his property as
price of ghee. Be that as it may, the question before us is that whether
registration of an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code
and in some of the cases registration under section 188 of Indian
Penal Code would add to the gravity for purposes of detention.”
8. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has manufactured with an
intention to sell unsafe food i.e. mava for human consumption and has thus
become guilty of an offence of dealing with unsafe food. In similar fact
situation the Apex Court in the matter of Ram Nath (supra) has held that the
Act, 2006 gives over riding effect to the provisions of the said Act over any
other law in so far as the law applies to the aspects of food in the field
covered by the Act, 2006. When offence under Section 272 and 273 of the
IPC are made out, even the offence under Section 59 of the Act, 2006 will be
attracted. By virtue of Section 89 of the Act, 2006, Section 59 will over ride
the provisions of Section 272 and 273 of the IPC and there cannot be any
question of simultaneous prosecution under both the statutes. For ready
reference the relevant part of the said order being material is reproduced as
under :-
“20. Therefore, as far as offences relating to food and food safety are
concerned, there are very exhaustive provisions made in FSSA dealing
with all aspects of food and food security.
21. In the facts of these cases, the offence under Section 59 FSSA is very
relevant, which reads thus:
“59. Punishment for unsafe food.–Any person who, whether by
himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or
stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human
consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable–
(i) where such failure or contravention does not result in njury, with
[imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and also
with fine which may extend to three lakh rupees]; [ Subs. forSignature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 24-04-2026
18:41:31
6NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11300
“imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with
fine which may extend to one lakh rupees” by Act 18 of 2023, Section 2
and Sch. (w.e.f. 8-11-2023).]
(ii) where such failure or contravention results in a non-grievous injury,
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also
with fine which may extend to three lakh rupees;
(iii) where such failure or contravention results in a grievous injury, with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and also with
fine which may extend to five lakh rupees;
(iv) where such failure or contravention results in death, with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but
which may extend to imprisonment for life and also with fine which
shall not be less than ten lakh rupees.”
(emphasis supplied)
Any person, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf,
manufactures or, stores or, sells or imports unsafe food for human
consumption, becomes guilty of an offence of dealing with unsafe food.
As can be noted, there are different punishments provided, starting from
imprisonment for 3 months and extending to imprisonment for life and a
fine, depending upon the extent and nature of injury caused by unsafe
food. The fine is in the range of rupees three lakh to rupees ten lakh.
22. In these appeals, we are dealing only with Sections 272 and 273IPC.
The same read thus:
“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 article 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 of 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 of either description for a term which
may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to oneSignature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 24-04-2026
18:41:31
7NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11300
thousand rupees, or with both.”
23. Section 272 is an offence of adulteration of any article of food or
drink. The definition of food under clause (a) of Section 3 FSSA also
includes a liquid. If adulteration of an article of food is made which
makes such articles noxious as food or drink, the person who adulterates
is guilty of an offence punishable under Section 272IPC. It contemplates
the accused adulterating food with the intention to sell adulterated food.
Thus, intention is an ingredient of the offence. When by adulterating an
article of food or liquid, it becomes harmful or poisonous, it can be said
that it becomes noxious. If, by adulteration, an article of food becomes
noxious, it becomes unsafe food within the meaning of Section 3(zz)
FSSA.
24. Section 273 IPC applies when a person sells or, offers or exposes for
sale any article of food or drink which has been rendered noxious or has
become unfit for food or drink. Section 273 incorporates requirements of
knowledge or reasonable belief that the food or drink sold or offered for
sale is noxious. Section 59 FSSA does not require the presence of
intention as contemplated by Section 272IPC. Under Section 59 FSSA, a
person commits an offence who, whether by himself or by any person on
his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes any
article of food for human consumption which is unsafe. So, the offence
under Section 59 FSSA is made out even if there is an absence of
intention as provided in Section 272IPC. However, knowledge is an
essential ingredient in sub-section (1) of Section 48, and therefore, it
will be a part of Section 59 FSSA. The maximum punishment for the
offence under Section 272IPC is imprisonment for a term which may
extend to six months or with a fine. The substantive sentence for the
offence punishable under Section 273 is the same, whereas, under
Section 59, the punishment is of simple imprisonment extending from
three months to a life sentence with a fine of Rupees 3 lakhs up to 10
lakhs.
Conclusion
26. Thus, there are very exhaustive substantive and procedural
provisions in FSSA for dealing with offences concerning unsafe food.
27. In this context, we must consider the effect of Section 89 FSSA.
Section 89 reads thus:
“89. Overriding effect of this Act over all other food related laws.–
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 24-04-2026
18:41:31
8
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11300
The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in
force or in any instrument having effect of virtue of any law other than
this Act.”
The title of the Section indeed indicates that the intention is to give an
overriding effect to FSSA over all “food-related laws”. However, in the
main section, there is no such restriction confined to “food-related
laws”, and it is provided that provisions of FSSA shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other
law for the time being in force. So, the section indicates that an
overriding effect is given to the provisions of FSSA over any other law.
29. Therefore, the main Section clearly gives overriding effect to the
provisions of FSSA over any other law insofar as the law applies to the
aspects of food in the field covered by FSSA. In this case, we are
concerned only with Sections 272 and 273IPC. When the offences under
Sections 272 and 273IPC are made out, even the offence under Section
59 FSSA will be attracted. In fact, the offence under Section 59 FSSA is
more stringent.
30. The decision of this Court in Swami Achyutanand Tirth [Swami
Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India, (2014) 13 SCC 314 : (2014) 5
SCC (Cri) 647] does not deal with this contingency at all. In State of
Maharashtra [State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan,
(2019) 18 SCC 145 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 592] , the question of the effect
of Section 97 FSSA did not arise for consideration of this Court. The
Court dealt with simultaneous prosecutions and concluded that there
could be simultaneous prosecutions, but conviction and sentence can be
only in one. This proposition is based on what is incorporated in Section
26 of the GC Act. We have no manner of doubt that by virtue of Section
89 FSSA, Section 59 will override the provisions of Sections 272 and
273IPC. Therefore, there will not be any question of simultaneous
prosecution under both the statutes.
9. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, even if the allegations as levelled
against the petitioner are taken to be true at their face value, no offence
against him is made out under Section 420 of the IPC and Sections 50, 51
and 58 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
10. Consequently the petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 24-04-2026
18:41:31
9
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11300
FIR No. 226/2019 registered at Police Station Unhel, District Ujjain for
offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and Sections 50, 51 and 58
of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 against the petitioner is hereby
quashed. The respondents shall however be at liberty to initiate appropriate
proceedings in accordance with law against the petitioner and they would be
free to act in accordance with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 for
offences punishable under Section 59 of the said Act.
11. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
BDJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 24-04-2026
18:41:31
