Allahabad High Court

MOHD. ZUBAIRversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 16 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The FSSA, by virtue of Section 89, overrides Sections 274 and 275 of the BNS for the alleged milk adulteration, rendering the chargesheet untenable.

Summary

Mohd. Zubair filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash a chargesheet and cognizance order filed under Sections 274 and 275 of the BNS for alleged milk adulteration. He contended that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) comprehensively covers such offences and that Section 89 of the FSSA gives it overriding effect over any inconsistent law, rendering prosecution under the BNS impermissible. The State opposed the relief but did not dispute the Supreme Court’s ratio in Ram Nath v. State of U.P. (2024). The Allahabad High Court accepted the applicant’s argument, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision that the FSSA overrides other food‑related statutes, and held that the BNS provisions could not be applied to the same conduct. Consequently, the chargesheet and summons were quashed, the application was allowed, and the court clarified that the authorities may still proceed under the FSSA if they wish.

Issues considered

Whether Section 89 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 overrides the applicability of Sections 274 and 275 of the BNS for alleged milk adulteration.
Whether a person can be prosecuted under the BNS for an act already covered by the FSSA.
Effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Nath v. State of U.P. on the present proceedings.

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 274, 275
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — s. 59, 89

Subjects

milk adulteration
Food Safety and Standards Act
Section 89 overriding effect
BNS sections 274 275
quash of chargesheet
double prosecution
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31382 of 2026

Mohd. Zubair
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Meraj Ahmad Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to set aside chargesheet
dated 19.10.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 25.03.2026 passed
in Case Crime No. 49 of 2025 (State Vs. Shaukeen and others), under
Section 274, 275 BNS, P.S. Aichora Kamboh, District Sambhal, pending in
the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chandausi.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that as per the narration of FIR, it
is the allegation against applicant that he was involved in adulteration of
milk which comes under the ambit of offence under 274, 275 BNS. He
further submitted that the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 (in short
FSSA) is very exhaustive legislation dealing with all aspects of food,
including adulteration, unsafe food etc. and Section 89 of FSSA will have an
overriding effect over the provisions of BNS and as such, applicant cannot
be prosecuted in the present case. In support of his submissions, learned
counsel for applicant has placed reliance upon a judgement rendered by
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath vs. the State of U.P. and
others, 2024(3) SCC 502.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer sought through
the instant application but at the same, he time did not dispute the ratio of the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the Case of Ram Nath
(supra) as relied upon by learned counsel for applicant.

5. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties
alongwith entire material available on record, this Court finds substance in
NA528 No. 31382 of 2026
2

the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant. In the present
case, the allegation against applicant is essentially with regard to
adulteration of milk and such offences are specifically dealt with under the
FSSA and Section 89 of the FSSA provides that the provisions of the said
Act shall have an overriding effect over any other law for the time being in
force in case of any inconsistency.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath (supra), has already
considered the same issue and held that where the alleged act is covered by
the provisions of the FSSA, prosecution under the general penal law for the
same act would not be permissible in view of the overriding effect given to
the FSSA by Section 89 thereof. The relevant paragraphs of the said
judgment are being quoted hereinbelow:-

"26. Thus, there are very exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions
in the FSSA for dealing with offences concerning unsafe food.

27. In this context, we must consider the effect of Section 89 of the FSSA.
Section 89 reads thus:

"89. Overriding effect of this Act over all other food related
laws.- 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 the 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 the 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 the FSSA over any other law.

28. The settled law is that if the main Section is unambiguous, the aid of the
title of the Section or its marginal note cannot be taken to interpret the same.
Only if it is ambiguous, the title of the section or the marginal note can be
looked into to understand the intention of the legislature.

29. Therefore, the main Section clearly gives overriding effect to the
NA528 No. 31382 of 2026
3

provisions of the FSSA over any other law in so far as the law applies to the
aspects of food in the field covered by the FSSA. In this case, we are
concerned only with Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. When the offences
under Section 272 and 273 of the IPC are made out, even the offence under
Section 59 of the FSSA will be attracted. In fact, the offence under Section
59 of the FSSA is more stringent.

30. The decision of this Court in the case of Swami Achyutanand Tirth v.
Union of India, (2014) 13 SCC 314 does not deal with this contingency at
all. In the case of the State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan
(2019) 18 SCC 145, the question of the effect of Section 97 of the 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 of the FSSA, Section 59 will override the
provisions of Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. Therefore, there will not be
any question of simultaneous prosecution under both the statutes.

31. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2012, Criminal Appeal No.479
of 2012 and Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1379 of 2011
succeed, and we set aside the impugned orders. The offences, subject matter
of these appeals, are hereby quashed and set aside with liberty to the
authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law if
not already initiated. Therefore, the concerned authorities are free to act in
accordance with the FSSA for offences punishable under Section 59 of the
FSSA. Criminal Appeal Nos. 476 478 of 2012 are dismissed. No orders as to
costs".

7. In the present case also, the allegations made against the applicant relate
to adulteration of milk, which is a matter specifically covered by the FSSA,
therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram
Nath (supra), applicant cannot be prosecuted under Sections 274 and 275
BNS for the same alleged act.

8. In view thereof, chargesheet dated 19.10.2025 and
cognizance/summoning order dated 25.03.2026 passed in Case Crime No. 49
of 2025 (State Vs. Shaukeen and others), under Section 274, 275 BNS, P.S.
Aichora Kamboh, District Sambhal, pending in the court of learned Civil
NA528 No. 31382 of 2026
4

Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi, are hereby
quashed in respect of applicant herein.

9. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed.

10. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the competent
authority to proceed against applicant under the Special Act i.e. FSSA, if
required.

September 17, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…