Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.20106 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Jugeshwar Prasad, S/O Late Vishnu Ram, Resident Of Vill.- Dhanama, P.S.- Bodhgaya, District- Gaya. 2. Kamlesh Kumar, S/O Dayal Yadav, Resident Of Vill.- Panchanpur, P.S.- Tekari, District- Gaya. 3. Jagdeo Yadav, S/O Shishu Yadav, Resident Of Vill.- Parsan Mohanpur, District- Gaya. 4. Pramod Kumar, S/O Suresh Sharma, Resident Of Vill.- Fatehpur, P.S.- Fatehpur, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ashok Kumar Sinha, S/O not known to the Petitioners, Food Safety Authority, Civil Surgeon Office, Gaya. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudarshan Sharma, Adv. For the State : Mr. R.B. Roy ‘Raman’, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 5. 27.11.2012 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the State. The Petitioners seek quashing of both i.e. the First Information Report of Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 258 of 2011 pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, as well as the order dated 17.4.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, in Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 258 of 2011 by which he has taken cognizance in the matter. The case of the Complainant, i.e. Food Inspector was that when he visited the premises run by the Petitioners, he Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20106 of 2012 (5) dt.27-11-2012 2 / 2 2 seized certain food articles which were allegedly adulterated and filed the present prosecution. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that under Section 42 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, the Food Inspector can file a prosecution only after receipt of the Analysis Report and after due sanction. It is an admitted position that on the date of inspection and lodgment of the present prosecution which is borne out from the affidavit filed on behalf of the Commissioner of the Department in a counter affidavit filed on his behalf in the Writ Court no sanction was sought for prosecution of the Petitioner. It is under these circumstances, the Petitioners prayed for exoneration from prosecution. Having considered the arguments of the Petitioners, I am not inclined to accept the same for the simple reason that the First Information Report has also been instituted under [STATUTE] for which no sanction is required. In view of such, the application is dismissed. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 272

Statute Text:
Section 272 of the Indian Penal Code. Adulterating food or drink intended for sale, so as to make the same noxious. 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.