Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Apurva Vinaykanth Chavda vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 July, 2025
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 4203 OF 2025,
4187 of 2025 & 4198 of 2025
COMMON ORDER :
These Criminal Petitions, under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short „the
BNSS‟), have been filed by various accused in Crime
No.470 of 2024 of Tirupati East Police Station to grant
bail to them in the said crime.
Petitioner in Criminal Petition No.4203 of 2025 is
A.5; petitioner in Criminal Petition No.4187 of 2025 in A.3
and the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.4198 of 2025 is
A.4, in the aforesaid crime.
2. Basing on a report dated 25.09.2024 lodged by
the General Manager (Procurement), T.T. Devasthanams,
Tirupati („the informant‟), the aforesaid crime was
registered for the offences under Sections 274, 275, 316
(5), 318 (3), 318 (4), 61 (2) and 299 read with 49 read with
3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity
„BNS‟) and Sections 51 and 59 of the Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act, 2006), by the Sub
2
Inspector of Police, East police station, Tirupati, against
M/s.A.R.Dairy Foods Private Limited, Dindigal, Tamilnadu
and others.
3. The allegations in the report dated 25.09.2024
lodged by the informant, in brief, are as follows.
In view of various complaints received from pilgrims
on the quality of Laddu Prasadam, the cow ghee
procurement process and the quality issues were reviewed
in depth, wherein several issues affecting the quality of
Laddu Prasadams, were noticed. TTD warned all the
suppliers to improve quality of ghee supplied that the
sub-standard stocks would be tested outside labs for
adulteration and the firm would be blacklisted with
suitable penalties if the tests indicate adulteration.
Pursuant to the same, all other firms improved the quality
of ghee, except M/s. A.R. Dairy Foods Private Limited,
Dindigal, Tamilnadu. Supply order was issued in favour
of the said firm on 15.05.2024 for supply of 10 lakhs KGs
of cow ghee within 1500 KMs radius from Tirumala, and
its price of Rs.319.80 ps appears to be unviable and
3
unreasonable for supplying pure ghee. The company
supplied four tankers of ghee on 12.06.2024, 20.06.2024,
25.06.2024 and 04.07.2024 respectively, and the same
were accepted with the earlier procedure of testing which
does not include adulteration testing. Thereafter, a
decision was taken to utilize services of outside NABL
accredited lab for testing adulteration by tying up with
NDDB, CALF Lab, Anand, Gujarat for enforcing quality as
per tender conditions, which is for the first time in the
TTD. Accordingly, samples were collected from the
aforesaid four tankers and sent to NDDB CALF Limited,
Anand, confidentially for testing the quality. The testing
reports were received on 16.07.2024 and 23.07.2024,
wherein it was noticed that there is high level of
adulteration of ghee supplied. According to the report, all
the samples have vegetable and animal fat based
adulterants including LARD. Show-cause notices were
issued to the said company and a reply was submitted by
the said company to the said show-cause notice. TTD
purchases ghee for preparation of Swamivari Laddu and
other Prasadams as per the Dittam, and expect values,
4
quality and authenticity, and in view of the above, TTD
was disheartened to discover that the ghee supplied by
the said company recently did not meet the expected
standards. Quality of ghee affects both health and
religious sentiments and beliefs of the devotees of Lord Sri
Venkateswara. TTD was made to believe by the company
that strict quality control measures were maintained by it
to ensure that their products meet safety and quality
standards, but the results of the samples which were
tested were otherwise. The S Value for the sample, as per
the report dated 12.07.2024 given by the NDDB Calf
Limited, Gujarat is substantially low as compared to the
Standard S Value limits as per the method. The company
violated the agreement clauses and committed cheating by
adulterating ghee. It quoted lowest price for cow ghee and
thereby induced TTD to award the Order for 10 lakhs KGs
of ghee with them, and it supplied the sub-standard and
adulterated ghee to have wrongful gain and deceived TTD
and the devotees. It also committed breach of trust due to
failure of supply of pure cow ghee by violating the promise
made by it as per the agreement terms and conditions,
5
and also committed the offences under the FSS Act 2006.
The adulteration of ghee is nothing but a criminal
conspiracy between the supplier and some vested
interests. In view of the spread of the news all over India,
there are lot of debates and dialogue war between different
groups of media which is likely to disturb public
tranquility. The ghee was supplied by the supplier
without observing the safety standards and liability of the
manufacturer and hence by supplying the same, the
supplier violated penal Sections 51 and 59 of the FSS Act,
2006. Hence, it was requested to conduct investigation
and take appropriation action as per law.
4. Thereafter, a Special Investigation Team was
appointed by the State Government on 26.9.2025 for
conducting investigation into the said crime, Thereafter,
pursuant to the Order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, a five-member Special
Investigation Team was constituted under the supervision
of the Director, Central Bural of Investigation (CBI) to
conduct a deeper probe.
6
5. During the course of investigation, the
petitioners, who are the C.E.O. and Directors, of M/s. Sri
Vyshnavi Dairy Specialties Private Limited(A.6), were
arrested on 09.02.2025 and got remanded to judicial
remand. After completion of investigation, charge sheet
is filed by the Investigation Officer, Special Investigation
Team /Additional Superintendent of Police (Admn.),
Tirupati.
6. The allegations in the charge sheet, inter alia,
are as follows.
(a) A.6 has no capacity in respect of milk
procurement, production of butter and ghee to meet the
TTD Tender specifications and A.6 did not manufacture
ghee in bulk except producing the minimal quantity for
local requirement, and as a part of conspiracy, A.5
manipulated the documents and submitted false and
fabricated documents to the TTD for participating in the
TTD tenders. A.6 got 10 TTD ghee tenders and supplied
33,93,792 Kgs of ghee to the TTD and received
commission from A.7 till A.3 and A.4 took over A.6
7
company. It is further alleged that after taking over A.6
company by A.3 and A.4, during January, 2024, A.6
participated in TTD tender by submitting false and
fabricated documents without having capacity to meet the
TTD tender requirements and got the tender ID
No.700539 for supply 5.00 lakhs Kgs of cow ghee through
tankers and supplied 3,18,750 KGs of ghee through ghee
tankers. It is further alleged that A.7 supplied cow ghee
through big tankers of about 30,000 KG capacity and Tins
to A.6, which in turn supplied the same through small
tankers of about 17,000 Kg capacity and Tins (15 kg) to
TTD in the aforesaid 10 tenders. It is further alleged that
as per the lab test reports, samples of ghee which were
examined at CFTRI do not conform the specifications of
Food Safety Standard Regulation 2.1.8, and as the test
results of all the 4 samples in respect of test for B-
Sitosterol are positive, the ghee supplied by A.7, A.6 and
M/s. Premier Agri Foods Private Limited was found
adulterated. It is further alleged that A.7 was allowed to
continue its supply of ghee to TTD till October, 2022, and
since TTD disqualified A.7 to participate in TTD ghee
8
tenders, A.3 and A.4 supplied ghee to TTD through other
dairies i.e. A.6 and another, under 1500 KM category
which was reintroduced by the TTD during 2022.
(b) It is further alleged that A.5 informed A.3 that
A.2, Managing Director of A.1 company, accepted for the
above proposal for supplying of ghee to TTD in his
company name for which A.3 informed A.5 to go ahead
with the proposal, and in pursuance of the conspiracy, on
23.04.2023, A.5 through Whatsapp shared the details of
list of documents required to be uploaded for participating
in TTD ghee tender under 1500 KM category to A.2, and
in response to the above communication, A.2 asked for
the Model for declaration under Annexure-A & B. It is
further alleged in the charge sheet that in pursuance of
the abovesaid conspiracy, on 13.05.2023, A.5 created a g-
mail id „[email protected]‟ in the name of A.1
by giving his credentials and mobile number, for the
purpose of participating in TTD ghee tender. It is alleged
that as per the instructions of A.5, certain documents of
A.1 were prepared and sent to A.5 with an intent to
participate in TTD ghee tender.
9
(c) A.5, with the assistance of his staff, prepared
false and fabricated documents pertaining to A.1 i.e.
FSSAI License (Form-C), FSSAI Annual Returns for 2022-
23, procurement of milk and production details of ghee
and butter to meet the tender conditions of TTD ghee
tender under 1,500 KMs and National Category, and the
said documents were forwarded through mail to Smt.
G.Velvizhi, Internal Auditor, A.1 and copy was marked to
A.2, the Managing Director of A.1 with instructions to
obtain the signatures of Raju Rajasekaran (A.2) and sent
both soft and hard copies to him for participating in TTD
tenders. It is alleged that A.5, in turn, through his staff,
forwarded the above false and fabricated documents
through mail to Shri P.P.Srinivasan with instructions to
upload the documents in TTD e-tender portal.
(d) It is further alleged that A.5 and A.8 instructed
staff of A.6 to delete Whatsapp chat in their mobile
phones and also instructed to tell that the ghee in 8
tankers supplied to TTD through A.1 was manufactured
in A.6 itself and not to reveal the name of A.7 to FSSAI
officials, and accordingly the staff of A.6 deleted Whatsapp
10
chats and did not reveal the name of A.7, and A.5
destroyed his mobile and laptop which were having
crucial information in order to cover up misdeeds. It is
alleged that the role of A.5 and A.8 was not only just
limited to supply of adulterated ghee, but also deeply
involvement in falsification of records to show ghee
production and enhanced milk procurement, and they
created false records to mislead authorities to believe that
A.6 was manufacturing cow ghee. It is alleged that in
furtherance of conspiracy with A.3 and A.4, A.5 and A.6
played a pivotal role in resupplying the adulterated ghee
in rejected four ghee tankers of A.1 to TTD in the supply
orders of A.6, and after issue of adulterated ghee supplied
to TTD came to light, in anticipation of FSSAI inspection
to A.6, they created fake invoices in favour of Sri Krishna
Oil Industries, Kolkata and Sun Alkalies, Sitarampur,
West Bengal to substantiate their false claim of disposal of
ghee in rejected four tankers to a soap factory. It is
alleged that they sold the left over ghee and butter
available in A.6 vide said invoices to remove the traces of
the said adulterated ghee and burnt the carton boxes of
11
butter in the name of A.7 in the premises of A.6 to screen
evidence. It is alleged that this deliberate
misrepresentation of production process and resupplying
of adulterated ghee into TTD supply chain undermined
public trust, breached faith and violated tender
conditions, hurt the religious sentiments of devotees. A.5
not only ignored internal lab findings of A.1 with regard to
adulteration, but also actively directed employees of A.6 to
manipulate lab reports to meet the TTD parameters,
further solidifying his role in these unethical activities,
and that the systematic collusion and relabeling efforts by
A.5 were integral to the fraudulent scheme hatched along
with his counterparts in the conspiracy and fraud. The
dishonest and fraudulent acts among A.5, A.2, A.3, A.4
and A.8, resulted in wrongful gain to themselves and
corresponding loss to TTD. It is alleged that A.5 paid
undue advantage (bribes) to TTD officials A.9 and A.10 to
secure and retain business, expedite bill payments and
influence tender process.
(e) It is alleged that the aforesaid acts of A.5, A.8 and
A.6 constitute offences of criminal conspiracy, act done by
12
several persons in furtherance of common intention,
causing disappearance of evidence, sale/supply of
noxious food i.e. ghee, criminal breach of trust, cheating
with knowledge that wrongful loss caused to TTD,
cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property,
preparation of false and fabricated documents, deliberate
and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings
and sentiments of devotees, induced public servant by
giving undue advantage to perform improperly public
duty, and accordingly, A.5 committed the offences
punishable under Sections 61 (2), 238, 274, 275, 316 (5),
318 (3), 318 (4), 299, 336 (3), 340 (2), 49 read with 3 (5) of
the BNS & Section 120B, 201, 271, 273, 409, 418, 420,
468, 471, 295A, 109 read with 34 IPC and 120 B IPC & 61
(2) of the BNS and Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and
substantive offences punishable under Sections 8 and 10
of the Act.
7. As regards A.3 and A.4, it is alleged that A.3
and A.4, as Directors of A.7 and A.6 companies, master-
13
mined a large scale conspiracy to supply adulterated ghee
to the TTD; that no milk was procured/purchased at any
point of time by A.7 during the period of supply of ghee to
TTD through A.6 and A.1; that on the instructions of A.3
and A.4, A.14 created fake milk purchase record, fake
milk sale record and fake cream sale records as if A.7
purchased milk and produced milk products like cream.
It is further alleged that A.3 and A.4, in criminal
conspiracy with A.12 and A.13, prepared
adulterated/noxious ghee by mixing Refined Palm Oil,
Refined Palm Oil and Refined Palmolein procured through
A.11 and M/s. Harsh Trading Company, with minimal
quantity of ghee along with chemicals viz. Beta-Carotene,
Acetic Acid Ester, Lactic Acid Food Grade, Monoglyceride,
Ghee flavor and other adulterants to adjust the lab test
values and to maintain aroma in adulterated ghee in A.7;
that A.6 and A.1 were used as front companies to secure
TTD ghee tenders after A.3 and A.4 repeatedly failed to
meet eligibility conditions of TTD ghee tenders through
their company A.7. It is further alleged that during FYs
2022-23, 2023-24 and up to September, 2024, A.3 and
14
A.4 diverted 57,56,517.50 Kgs of refined palm oil, palm
kernel oil and palmolein which were shown as fake sales
from M/s. Harsh Trading company and A.1 and used the
same for preparation of adulterated ghee in their company
A.7 and sold the adulterated ghee to A.6. It is further
alleged that A.12, who is Proprietor of M/s. Shree Mohan
Hari Trading, in conspiracy with A.3 and A.4, make fake
transactions of sale/purchase of cream in 2021-22 in
order to show that as if A.7 purchased milk and produced
cream and in order to inflate turn over. It is further
alleged that A.14, being Accountant of A.7, in conspiracy
with A.3 and A.4, with a dishonest intention, showed false
sale of milk in cash from A.7 to one Ravindra Dairy,
Budhana and also on the family members of Sri Ravindra
Kumar. It is further alleged that A.15, in criminal
conspiracy with A.3 and A.4, raised invoices for fake sale
of ghee without there being any actual sale of ghee from
his four firms in favour of A.7. It is further alleged that
A.3, A.4 and A.16 deliberately destroyed their old mobile
phones and purchased new mobile phones in order to
cover up their misdeeds, and A.3 and A.4 paid undue
15
pecuniary advantages on behalf of their companies A.7
and A.6, to public servants i.e. employees of TTD i.e. A.9
and A.10, for smooth running of their fraudulent
activities; that by the fraudulent acts, A.3 and A.4 earned
crores of rupees through their company A.7 by violating
conditions of legal contract agreement executed with TTD
towards supply of Agmark Special Grade cow ghee and
thereby misappropriated the amount received by them
through the said adulterated ghee supplied to TTD and
authorized illicit financial transactions organized in such
a way to sustain their fraudulent activities, and the
aforesaid criminal acts resulted in defrauding of a revered
religious institution and breached public faith and trust,
and the quality of sacred prasadams of Lord Sri
Venkateswara Swamy was compromised which deeply
hurts religious sentiments of devotees. Therefore, the acts
of the petitioners constitute offences of criminal
conspiracy, acts done by several persons in furtherance of
common intention, causing disappearance of evidence,
adulteration of ghee intended for sale, sale of noxious food
i.e. ghee, criminal breach of trust, cheating with
16
knowledge that wrongful loss caused to TTD, cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of property, deliberate and
malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings and
sentiments of devotees of Lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy.
8. Learned senior counsel Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy
appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner in
Criminal Petition No.4203 of 2025-A.5 submits that the
Officers have not followed the procedure contemplated
under the FSS Act, 2006, in lifting the samples and there
is non-compliance of Sections 42 and 47 of the Act. The
learned senior counsel further submits that the Special
Investigation Team conducted the investigation and also
filed charge sheet. He submits that the petitioner/A.5 was
arrested on 09.02.2025 and since then he has been
languishing in jail. He further submits that the petitioner
/A.5 is the CEO of A.6-company and he is not the person
who supplied ghee directly to the TTD; even according to
the prosecution, there was supply of ghee to A.R. Dairy
Food Private Limited, and from there, ghee was supplied
to the TTD.
17
The learned senior counsel further submits that
ghee was supplied to the TTD on 09.07.2024 and
12.07.2024 and the Food Inspectors are alleged to have
lifted the sample from two tankers on those days.
According to him, no notice has been served on the
petitioner/A.5, and in pursuant to the analysis, an
opportunity has not been given to the petitioner/A.5 so as
to enable him to get it analyzed in a Central Food
Laboratory. He further submits that the petitioner/A.5
has got fixed abode, and the question of threatening the
witnesses or tampering the evidence by the petitioner
would not arise since charge sheet has already been filed.
He submits that all the offences that are alleged as
against the petitioner/A.5 are punishable up to 7 years
imprisonment, except the offence punishable under
Section 316 (5) of the BNS. According to him, the said
provision would not be applicable to the petitioner/A.5 for
the reason that he is not public servant as per the
definition. Hence, he prays to enlarge the petitioner/A.5
on bail.
18
9. Sri S.Sriram, learned senior counsel, appearing
for the learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal
Petition No.4187 of 2025 and 4198 of 2025/A.3 and A.4,
concurred with the submissions made by the learned
senior counsel Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, and further
submitted that Section 89 of the FSS Act, 2006 has over-
riding effect over the provisions of the BNS, and in such
circumstances, the provisions under the FSS Act, 2006
and the BNS cannot go together. In support of his
contention, he relied upon a decision in Ram Nath v. State
of Uttar Pradesh & others1, and submitted that the
provisions under Sections 274 and 275 of the BNS are not
maintainable as the FSS Act, 2006 is a self-contained Act
and any violation under the said Act is made punishable
under the same Act.
The learned senior counsel further submitted that
pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid crime, notices
were issued to the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 to appear
before the investigating agency for questioning on different
dates i.e. on 01.02.2025, 07.02.2025 and 08.02.2025,
1
(2024) 3 SCC 502
19
and the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 replied to the said
notices, and further they appeared before the investigating
agency promptly without fail and co-operated with the
investigating agency, and that the question of absconding
or tampering with the evidence, by the petitioners/A.3
and A.4 would not arise. The learned senior counsel
further submitted that the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 were
arrested on 09.02.2025 and since then they have been
languishing in judicial custody, and that entire
investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed.
Hence, he prays to enlarge the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 on
bail.
10. On the other hand, Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar,
learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI in all Criminal
Petitions strenuously contended that all the petitioners
conspired together and created certain false and
fabricated documents, and that there is abundant
material to show that the petitioners herein, being the
C.E.O and Directors of M/s. Sri Vyshnavi Dairy
Specialties Private Limited (A.6), procured adulterated
20
ghee from M/s. Bhole Baba Organic Dairy Milk Private
Limited (A.7) and thereafter supplied the same to the TTD.
According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor,
Sitosterol parameter showed positive result, and the
reports have been issued to that extent.
According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor,
specific accusations have been made as against
petitioner/A.5 that he was involved in preparation of false
and fabricated documents of A.1 to suit the eligibility for
TTD tender process and forwarded the same to A.2, who
signed and forwarded the same along with TTD
documents. According to him, A.5 played a major role in
securing supply order from TTD though A.2 was not
eligible to secure the tender and he is aware of the fact
that adulterated ghee was supplied to the TTD.
According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor,
A.3 and A.4 approached the management of A.6 in the
year 2019 to participate in TTD ghee tenders in the name
of A.6 saying that the entire ghee would be supplied from
A.7 and all expenses also are borne by them and also they
would give 2% commission to A.6, for which A.6 accepted
21
the said proposal even though it was not having capacity
in respect of milk procurement. He submits that in
pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, A.6 got 10 TTD
ghee tenders (AP Dairy category/1500 KM category/15 Kg
tin category) and supplied total quantity of 33,93,791 Kgs
adulterated ghee to the TTD and received their
commission from A.7 till A.3 and A.4 took over A.6
company. He further submits that A.5 informed A.3
about the proposal of A.1, being accepted by TTD for
supply of ghee in their name, and A.3 informed A.5 to go
ahead with the proposal and thereafter ghee was supplied
to A.1, who in turn supplied the adulterated ghee to TTD.
The learned Special Public Prosecutor further
submitted that the petitioners are highly influential
persons, and though the charge sheet has been filed,
there is every chance that they would influence the
witnesses, and hence, till trial is completed, the
petitioners are not entitled to bail. Hence, he prays to
dismiss the Criminal Petitions.
22
11. Heard Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy and Sri S.Sriram,
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and
the learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. Perused
the record.
12. Section 41 of the FSS Act, 2006 deals with
power of search, seizure, investigation, prosecution and
procedure thereof. The said Section reads thus:
“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (2) of Section 31, the Food Safety Officer
may search any place, seize any article of food or
adulterant, if there is a reasonable doubt about
them being involved in commission of any offence
relating to food and shall thereafter inform the
Designated Officer of the actions taken by him in
writing;
Provided that no search shall be deemed to be
irregular by reason only of the fact that witnesses
for the search are not inhabitants of the locality in
which the place searched is situated.
(2) Save as in this Act otherwise expressly
provided, provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) relating to search,
seizure, summon, investigation and prosecution,
shall apply as far as may be, to all action taken by
the Food Safety Officer under this Act.”
23
From the aforesaid provision, it is manifest that if
there is any reasonable doubt, the Food Safety Officer
may search any place and seize any article of food and
inform the Designated Officer of the action taken by him
in writing. Proviso to the aforesaid Section makes it clear
that no search is deemed irregular on the ground that
witnesses in the search are not inhabitants of the locality.
13. Section 42 of the FSS Act, 2006 deals with the
procedure for launching prosecution. The said Section
reads thus:
“(1) The Food Safety Officer shall be responsible for
inspection of food business, drawing samples and
sending them to Food Analyst for analysis.
(2) The Food Analyst, after receiving the sample
from the Food Safety Officer, shall analyse the
sample and send the analysis report mentioning
method of sampling and analysis within fourteen
days to Designated Officer with a copy to the
Commissioner of Food Safety.
(3) The Designated Officer after scrutiny of the
report of the Food Analyst shall decide as to
whether the contravention is punishable with
imprisonment or fine only and in the case of
contravention punishable with imprisonment, he
shall send his recommendations within fourteen
24days to the Commissioner of Food Safety for
sanctioning prosecution.
…”
It is manifest the aforesaid provision that the Food
Safety Officer, after seizing the sample, shall send the
same for analysis to the Food Analyst, who shall analyse
the sample and send the analysis report mentioning the
method of sampling and analysis, to the Designated
Officer within 14 days. Thereafter, the Designated Officer
would come to the conclusion, basing on the report,
whether the contravention is punishable with
imprisonment or fine, and if the contravention is
punishable with imprisonment, he shall send the
recommendations within 14 days to the Commissioner of
Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution.
14. Basing on the aforesaid provisions, the learned
senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that the procedure contemplated under the FSS Act, 2006
has not been complied with. According to him, the
samples were not lifted in the presence of the petitioners
herein and the same has been done so in the presence of
25
Driver and Cleaner, who are not technical persons. The
learned senior counsel further relied upon Section 59 of
the FSS Act, 2006, which contemplates punishment for
unsafe food. The said Section reads thus:
“Any person who, whether by himself or by any
other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale
or stores or sells or distributes or imports any
article of food for human consumption which is
unsafe, shall be punishable-
(i) where such failure or contravention does not
result in injury, with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three months and also with
fine which may extend to three lakh rupees;
(ii) where such failure or contravention results in a
non-grievous injury with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one year and also with fine
which may extend to three lakh rupees;
(iii) where such failure or contravention results in
grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six years and also with fine
which may extend to fine lakh rupees;
(iv) where such failure or contravention results in
death, with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than seven years but which may extend
to imprisonment for life and also with fine which
shall not be less than ten lakh rupees.”
26
A plain reading of the aforesaid provision goes to
show that basing on the result of the failure or
contravention, punishment is prescribed in the aforesaid
Section.
15. It is the contention of the learned senior
counsels appearing for the petitioners that there is
absolutely no complaint from any quarter stating that any
person suffered any grievous injury or death because of
consumption of the adulterated food in the case on hand.
A perusal of the material on record goes to show that
there is no complaint whatsoever from any quarter to that
extent. The learned Special Public Prosecutor too did not
dispute the contention of the learned senior counsels.
16. The other ground that has been raised is with
regard to over-riding effect of Section 89 of the FSS Act,
2006 over the provisions of the BNS. In Ram Nath v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & others (1 supra), relied on by the
learned senior counsel Sri S.Sriram, it is held thus:
(paragraphs 23, 24, 26, 29 and 30).
27
“23. Section 272 is an offence of adulteration of
any article of food or drink. The definition of food
under clause (a) of Section 3 FSSA also includes a
liquid. If adulteration of an article of food is made
which makes such articles noxious as food or
drink, the person who adulterates is guilty of an
offence punishable under Section 272IPC. It
contemplates the accused adulterating food with
the intention to sell adulterated food. Thus,
intention is an ingredient of the offence. When by
adulterating an article of food or liquid, it becomes
harmful or poisonous, it can be said that it
becomes noxious. If, by adulteration, an article of
food becomes noxious, it becomes unsafe food
within the meaning of Section 3(zz) FSSA.
24. Section 273 IPC applies when a person sells or,
offers or exposes for sale any article of food or
drink which has been rendered noxious or has
become unfit for food or drink. Section 273
incorporates requirements of knowledge or
reasonable belief that the food or drink sold or
offered for sale is noxious. Section 59 FSSA does
not require the presence of intention as
contemplated by Section 272IPC. Under Section 59
FSSA, a person commits an offence who, whether
by himself or by any person on his behalf,
manufactures for sale or stores or sells or
distributes any article of food for human
consumption which is unsafe. So, the offence
28under Section 59 FSSA is made out even if there is
an absence of intention as provided in Section
272IPC. However, knowledge is an essential
ingredient in sub-section (1) of Section 48, and
therefore, it will be a part of Section 59 FSSA. The
maximum punishment for the offence under
Section 272IPC is imprisonment for a term which
may extend to six months or with a fine. The
substantive sentence for the offence punishable
under Section 273 is the same, whereas, under
Section 59, the punishment is of simple
imprisonment extending from three months to a
life sentence with a fine of Rupees 3 lakhs up to 10
lakhs.
Conclusion
26. Thus, there are very exhaustive substantive
and procedural provisions in FSSA for dealing with
offences concerning unsafe food.
29. Therefore, the main Section clearly gives
overriding effect to the provisions of FSSA over any
other law insofar as the law applies to the aspects
of food in the field covered by FSSA. In this case,
we are concerned only with Sections 272 and
273IPC. When the offences under Sections 272 and
273IPC are made out, even the offence under
Section 59 FSSA will be attracted. In fact, the
offence under Section 59 FSSA is more stringent.
29
30. The decision of this Court in Swami
Achyutanand Tirth [Swami Achyutanand Tirth v.
Union of India, (2014) 13 SCC 314 : (2014) 5 SCC
(Cri) 647] does not deal with this contingency at
all. In State of Maharashtra [State of Maharashtra
v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan, (2019) 18 SCC
145 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 592] , the question of the
effect of Section 97 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 FSSA, Section
59 will override the provisions of Sections 272 and
273IPC. Therefore, there will not be any question of
simultaneous prosecution under both the
statutes.”
A plain reading of the principles laid down in the
said judgment goes to show that Section 89 of the FSS
Act, 2006 has an over-riding effect over all other food
related laws. By virtue of the same, it can be safely
inferred that the FSS Act, 2006 shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in any other law for the time being in force.
30
So, the said Section indicates that an over-riding effect
has been given to the provisions of the FSS Act, 2006 over
any other law.
17. Further more, in the case on hand, the
petitioners attended before the investigating agency thrice
pursuant to issuance of the notice. They appeared and
passed on the information, as required by the
investigating agency. By virtue of the same, it can be
safely inferred that the petitioners co-operated with the
investigation. Irrespective of the same, the investigating
agency completed investigation and filed charge sheet,
examining as many as 292 witnesses and exhibiting 954
documents. Having completed the investigation, the
question that crops up for consideration is whether it is
necessary to detain the petitioners further.
18. At this stage, the learned Special Public
Prosecutor vehemently contended that the petitioners are
not entitled for bail for the reason that the petitioners are
alleged to have threatened the witnesses, and in
connection with the same, complaints have been filed as
31
against them. This Court carefully perused the copies of
complaints which have been filed by the learned Special
Public Prosecutor by way of additional documents on
27.05.2025. A perusal of the same goes to show that a
complaint was given by one Sanjeev Kumar Jain on
10.04.2025, pursuant to which a case in crime No.99 of
2025 of Yerpedu police station, Tirupati district was
registered on 23.06.2025 against one Bishnoi and Shri
Ashish Rohila for the offences under Sections 351 (2) read
with 3 (5) of BNS and 174 (2) BNSS. It is alleged in the
said case that upon arrival of the informant in the said
case, in the Airport, Tirupati, he was approached by two
persons viz. Bishnoi, Advocate and Shri Ashish Rohila, an
Accountant at Bole Baba Bhagwanpur, and mentally
harassed and threatened him and compelled him to
switch off his phone with an intent to prevent him from
appearing before the SIT and later took him to Chennai in
a vehicle and sent him to his native place.
19. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further
submitted that pursuant to a report dated 08.04.2025
32
lodged by one Ravindra Kumar, a case in crime No.211 of
2025 of Alipiri police station, Tirupati was registered on
24.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections
351 (2) read with 3 (5) of the BNS read with 174 (2) BNSS
against one Anshul Bishnoi and Ashish Rohilla. It is
alleged in the said case that the informant arrived
Tirupati to give statement before SIT on 07.04.2025 and
while he was going to Hotel, one Anshul Bishnoi, Advocate
and Ashish Rohilla stopped him and his wife, took them
to around 100 meters from SIT office and told them to talk
to Pomil Jain & Company, and when the informant
refused to talk, they advised that the complainant was
making a mistake and cautioned that the case would get
worse if they gave their statement, and threatened as to
how he would save himself from Pomil Jain when he goes
home and they would take care of everything. It is
further alleged in the report that on 23.3.2025 also, he
submitted his documents to the investigating officer and
went back to home, and after that, the said persons,
Pomil Jain threatened him to disappear for 10 to 15 days
and forcibly switched off his phone.
33
Relying upon the aforesaid material, the learned
Special Public Prosecutor submitted that in view of the
aforesaid acts of the petitioners, there is every likelihood
that they would tamper with the evidence and threaten
witnesses in future, and hence, they are not entitled for
bail.
20. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further
contended that the said Ashish Rohila, who is arrayed as
accused in aforesaid crimes, filed Writ Petition No.11781
of 2025 before this Court, seeking to declare the action of
the respondents therein in conducing coercive
investigation and in coercing him to make confessions
under the guise of investigation in the present crime
No.470 of 2024, dated 25.09.2024 of Tirupati East police
station failing which threatening to cause physical harm
as per se illegal and opposed to the Fundamental Rights
guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution
of India. Thereafter, A.14 sent a mail to the Registrar
General of the High Court, marking copy to the
investigating officer, wherein he categorically stated that
34
he has not filed Writ Petition No.11781 of 2025. Relying
upon the same, the learned Special Public Prosecutor
contended that that petitioners are highly influential
persons and Writ Petitions are being filed at the back of
A.14, which goes to show that there is every chance that
they would tamper with the evidence. A perusal of the
material on record goes to show that this Court, vide its
order dated 02.05.2025 passed in the said Writ Petition
No.11781 of 2025, observed that the counsel on record
submitted that the petitioner in the said Writ Petition is in
custody of police and he is not aware of the e-mail, and
that the matter was entrusted to him by a counsel from
Tirupati, and the pleadings were also attested at Tirupati
and sent to him. This Court observed that as seen from
the Writ Petition, the advocate at Tirupati attested the
signature of the petitioner in the said Writ Petition, and
posted the matter to 08.05.2025. The said issue is
pending consideration before this Court.
21. This Court is of the view that if really such
instances are said to have taken place, it is not known as
35
to why the same is not stated in the counter filed by
respondents. Further, in the counter and additional
counter, there is no whisper about the accusations made
against one Anshul Bishnoi, Advocate and Ashish Rohilla,
who are arrayed as accused in the aforesaid cases. He
further emphasized that as on the dates of the aforesaid
complaints, the petitioners were lodged in prison. He
submits that the petitioners were arrested on 09.02.2025
and since then, they have been in judicial remand and it
is not the case of the prosecution that on the instructions
of A.3, the accused in the aforesaid crimes are alleged to
have threatened the witnesses. He submits that the
witnesses, who are the informants in the aforesaid crimes,
were examined by the SIT and their statements were
recorded subsequently. The learned senior counsel relied
on a decision in P.Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of
Investigation2, wherein it is held thus: (paragraphs 30, 31
and 32).
“30. FIR was registered by CBI on 15-5-2017. The
appellant was granted interim protection on 31-5-
2018 [P. Chidambaram v. CBI, 2018 SCC OnLine2
(2020) 13 SCC 337
36Del 13340] till 20-8-2019. Till the date, there has
been no allegation regarding influencing of any
witness by the appellant or his men directly or
indirectly. In the number of remand applications,
there was no whisper that any material witness
has been approached not to disclose information
about the appellant and his son. It appears that
only at the time of opposing the bail and in the
counter-affidavit filed by CBI before the High
Court, the averments were made that “… the
appellant is trying to influence the witnesses and if
enlarged on bail, would further pressurise the
witnesses….” CBI has no direct evidence against
the appellant regarding the allegation of appellant
directly or indirectly influencing the witnesses. As
rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel
for the appellant, no material particulars were
produced before the High Court as to when and
how those two material witnesses were
approached. There are no details as to the form of
approach of those two witnesses either SMS, e-
mail, letter or telephonic calls and the persons who
have approached the material witnesses. Details
are also not available as to when, where and how
those witnesses were approached.
31. The learned Solicitor General submitted that
the statement of witness „X‟ who is said to have
been approached not to disclose any information
regarding the appellant and his son, has been
37
recorded under Section 164 CrPC in which the said
witness „X‟ has made the statement that he has
been approached. Statement under Section 164
CrPC of the said witness „X‟ is said to have been
recorded on 15-3-2018. The said witness allegedly
approached or the other witnesses in a case of the
present nature, cannot be said to be a rustic or
vulnerable witness who could be so easily
influenced; more so, when the allegations are said
to be based on documents. More particularly, there
is no material to show that the appellant or his
men have been approaching the said witness so as
to influence the witness not to depose against the
appellant or his son.
32. It is to be pointed out that the respondent CBI
has filed remand applications seeking remand of
the appellant on various dates viz. 22-8-2019, 26-
8-2019, 30-8-2019, 2-9-2019, 5-9-2019 and 19-9-
2019, etc. In these applications, there were no
allegations that the appellant was trying to
influence the witnesses and that any material
witnesses (accused) have been approached not to
disclose information about the appellant and his
son. In the absence of any contemporaneous
materials, no weight could be attached to the
allegation that the appellant has been influencing
the witnesses by approaching the witnesses. The
conclusion of the learned Single Judge “… that it
cannot be ruled out that the petitioner will not
38
influence the witnesses directly or indirectly….” is
not substantiated by any materials and is only a
generalised apprehension and appears to be
speculative. Mere averments that the appellant
approached the witnesses and the assertion that
the appellant would further pressurise the
witnesses, without any material basis cannot be
the reason to deny regular bail to the appellant;
more so, when the appellant has been in custody
for nearly two months, cooperated with the
investigating agency and the charge-sheet is also
filed.”
On a reading of the aforesaid judgment goes to show
that an accusation has been made against the appellant
therein that he was trying to influence the witnesses and
if he was enlarged on bail, he would further pressurize the
witnesses. It has been observed by the Hon‟ble Apex
Court that CBI has no direct evidence against the
appellant regarding the allegation that the appellant
therein was directly or indirectly influencing the
witnesses. In the case on hand too, no material
particulars are produced before this Court as to when and
as to how the petitioners approached the witnesses. A
vague accusation has been made at a belated stage that
39
the witnesses were approached by the accused and in
respect of that cases were registered. The fact remains
that the said witnesses appeared before the SIT and their
statements were recorded and they produced the
documents. Even the said fact of complaints being filed,
has come up at a belated stage.
22. Bail jurisprudence is based on the touchstone
of the principle „Bail is rule and jail is an exception‟ in
Indian criminal justice system. The main object of the
bail is to ensure presence of the accused before the Court
of law to face trial and makes himself available to the
Court for serving sentence, if convicted. In a
constitutional controlled criminal justice system,
balancing approach has to be adopted protecting the
rights of the accused and upholding the collective interest
of the society, which requires a fearless environment.
23. The petitioners in the case on hand have no
flight risk and they co-operated with the investigation and
as and when notices were issued, they appeared before
the investigating agency and submitted all the documents
40
required by the investigating agency. The petitioners are
languishing in jail for more than 4 ½ months. Entire
investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed.
Hence, this Court is of the opinion that incarceration of
the petitioners further is not necessary.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, the
Criminal Petitions are allowed. The petitioners shall be
enlarged on bail on each of them executing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five
thousand only) with two sureties for the like each, to the
satisfaction of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Tirupati.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
03 .07.2025.
DRK
41
03.07.2025
After pronouncement of the order, the learned
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI requested that a
condition may be imposed directing the petitioners to co-
operate with the investigation, if any, and also to attend
before the investigating agency as and when called.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
it is made clear that the petitioners shall co-operate with
the investigation, if any, by the investigating agency and
attend before the investigating agency as and when called.
__________________________________
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
03.07.2025.
DRK
42
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
COMMON ORDER
IN
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 4203 OF 2025,
4187 of 2025 & 4198 of 2025
03 .07.2025
DRK