Prima Facie No Representation To Customer That Paneer Is Pure: MP High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Vendor Accused Of Selling "Unfit" Paneer

The bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan observed that there was nothing on record to suggest that the customers purchased the paneer under the pretext that the it was pure but later found it to be adulterated-

For the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, ingredients of Section 415 of IPC have to be fulfilled. There must be a representation which is false which representation must lead a person to act in a manner which causes him loss or to act in a manner in which he would not have otherwise acted but for the false representation. Prima facie it does not appear to be a case where a customer has purchased the Paneer under the representation that the Paneer is pure and was later found to be adulterated.

Facts of the case were that while inspecting the shop of the Applicant, the Food Inspector seized paneer which was found to be unsafe for human consumption under Section 3(1)(zz) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. He, thus, filed a complaint against the Applicant as required under FSSA. In addition thereto, he also got an FIR registered against the Applicant for offences punishable under Sections 420, 272, 273 IPC. Apprehending his arrest, the Applicant moved the Court.

The Applicant submitted before the Court that the said FIR was filed with mala fide intentions. It was further argued that he was alleged to have committed an offence which is specifically mentioned under FSSA, whereby he was exposed to penalty under Section 57(1)(ii). Per contra, the State asserted that the offence of cheating can be made out against an individual selling adulterated food.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court concurred with the submissions put forth by the Applicant. It noted that the ingredients under Section 415 IPC were not fulfilled so as to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC-

The F.I.R. has been registered by the Food Inspector himself. The other sections being Sections 272 and 273 though prima facie applicable in this case are not cognizable and bailable offence. Prima facie, it appears that the act of the applicant can only be proceeded under Section 57 (1) (ii) and Sections 272 and 273 of IPC. Prima facie, ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are not fulfilled in order to make the applicant liable for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.

Accordingly, the application was allowed and the Applicant was extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Case Title: BEERBAL DHAKAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 3