Police Have No Jurisdiction Over Food Adulteration Cases, Rules Telangana HC
The High Court held that the FSS Act governed food-related offences and that only food safety officers were empowered to initiate proceedings under the statute.
Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court has reiterated that the police have no jurisdiction to investigate offences relating to food adulteration under general criminal law, when a special law, the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSS Act), 2006 , governed the field. The court quashed a criminal case registered against the owner of a biryani masala manufacturing unit under the charges of food adulteration.
The case arose after the Mailardevpally police raided a manufacturing unit at Katedan in April 2024 and allegedly seized biryani masala, dry garlic and other materials, claiming that the products were adulterated and stored in unhygienic conditions. The owner challenged the police action in booking a case against under the BNS.
The High Court held that the FSS Act governed food-related offences and that only food safety officers were empowered to initiate proceedings under the statute. The court relied on precedents, including rulings of the Supreme Court and previous orders of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court, to conclude that police authorities could not bypass the statutory mechanism prescribed under the food safety law by invoking general penal provisions.
Counsel S.M. Saifullah argued for the petitioner that after the enactment of the FSS Act in 2006, provisions relating to food adulteration under general criminal law ceased to apply.
He contended that Section 97 of the FSS Act overrode corresponding provisions of other laws and that the special enactment prevails over general criminal provisions. According to the petitioner, only food safety officers were legally empowered to inspect food products, collect samples and initiate prosecution following the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules.
The petitioner argued that no food safety officer had collected samples in the present case and that no laboratory or food expert report existed to establish adulteration. He pointed out that no consumer complaint had been lodged against the manufacturing unit and alleged that the criminal case was initiated solely to harass the businessman and damage the firm’s reputation. The court observed that the issue was already settled by precedent. Hence, it cannot go beyond it.
