Hunny Mittal vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioners, Hunny Mittal and Bachan Lal, sought bail in FIR No. 315 dated 22.06.2023, registered at Police Station Jind City, District Jind, under various sections of the IPC, Essential Commodities Act, and Copyright Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were manufacturing and selling spurious ghee under the names of popular brands like Amul, Nova, and Saras, using chemical additives and domestic gas cylinders. During a raid, 780 liters of spurious ghee, along with manufacturing materials and empty branded packets, were recovered. The petitioners were arrested on 22.06.2023. Investigations revealed the use of a forged GSTIN number for sales and the involvement of another accused, Deepak Kumar. Samples of the recovered ghee were found to be sub-standard. Challans have been filed against both petitioners, who have been in custody for over six months and have no prior criminal antecedents.

Held

The Court held that the allegations against the petitioners, pertaining to the preparation and sale of spurious ghee using labels of renowned companies, are prima facie covered under the provisions of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006. The Court referred to Section 2(zf) of the Act, which defines "mis-branded food," encompassing situations where food is sold with false or misleading claims on labels, or as an imitation of another food article without proper disclosure. The Court noted that the investigation revealed the use of fake labels of famous companies and the sale of spurious ghee, which falls under the definition of mis-branded food under the Act. Consequently, it is a moot point whether the provisions of the IPC can be attracted in such circumstances for possessing fake labels for selling spurious ghee. The Court also considered that the investigation is complete, challan has been filed, the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, and they have been in custody for over six months, with the trial likely to take time. Therefore, the Court found no purpose in keeping the petitioners detained and admitted them to bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC, 1860, Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, is maintainable when the alleged offences are primarily covered by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006? The petitioner argued that the offences, particularly those related to mis-branded or sub-standard food, fall exclusively under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which is a special and self-contained legislation, and therefore, the provisions of the IPC should not be attracted. They contended that the police could not have registered the FIR and that the procedure prescribed by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, should have been followed. The petitioner also argued that Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC are non-cognizable and bailable, and Section 10-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is now bailable. The respondent (State of Haryana) contended that the use of fake labels of famous companies and the sale of spurious ghee to the public attract Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, and since these offences are cognizable, the police's role is not excluded, even though the matter is also covered under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The respondent highlighted the use of a fake GSTIN number as further evidence of fraudulent intent.