Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed appeals concerning the interplay between the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) and Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding food adulteration. The background involved multiple criminal appeals challenging High Court orders that dismissed petitions to quash FIRs under IPC provisions, with the central controversy being whether the FSSA overrides IPC after its enforcement from 29 July 2010. The facts included FIRs registered after this date against appellants for offences like unlicensed sale and adulteration of food items such as mustard oil and cold drinks, with appellants relying on a High Court decision in Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, which held that the FSSA had an overriding effect and police lacked jurisdiction under it. The legal issues revolved around whether the FSSA excludes IPC applicability and the permissibility of prosecution under both laws. Arguments from the State emphasized that prosecution under multiple enactments is allowed under Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, with no bar except against double punishment, and that the IPC is not a food-related law under Section 89 FSSA. The accused contended that the FSSA, as a special exhaustive law, overrides IPC via Section 89 and Section 5 IPC. The Court's analysis considered the FSSA's objects, preamble, and definitions, noting its comprehensive nature to consolidate food laws and prevent confusion from multiplicity. It held that the FSSA does not override IPC provisions as the IPC is not a food-related law under Section 89, and prosecution under both is permissible, but punishment cannot be doubled. The decision allowed the State's appeal, setting aside the High Court's view in Pepsico India, and upheld the validity of prosecutions under IPC post-FSSA, with directions for cases to proceed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Food Adulteration - Overriding Effect of Special Law - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Section 89 - The Supreme Court considered whether the FSSA, a comprehensive special law, overrides the IPC provisions on food adulteration. The Court held that the FSSA, enacted to consolidate food laws, does not exclude the applicability of Sections 272 and 273 IPC, as the IPC is not a food-related law under Section 89. Prosecution under both enactments is permissible, but punishment cannot be twice for the same offence. (Paras 2, 5-8, 12) B) Criminal Law - Prosecution Under Multiple Enactments - Double Jeopardy - General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 26 - The Court addressed whether an offender can be prosecuted under both FSSA and IPC for the same act. Relying on Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Court held that where an act constitutes an offence under two enactments, prosecution under either or both is allowed, but the offender shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. (Paras 6, 12) C) Food Safety Law - Definitions and Scope - Unsafe Food vs. Adulterated Food - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Section 3 - The Court analyzed the definitions under the FSSA, noting that 'unsafe food' under Section 3(zz) is broader than 'adulterated food', encompassing any article rendered injurious to health. This comprehensive definition supports the FSSA's role as a special law, but does not preclude IPC application. (Paras 9-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) has an overriding effect over Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning food adulteration, and whether prosecution under IPC provisions is permissible after the FSSA came into force.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal, set aside the High Court's view in Pepsico India, and held that prosecution under Sections 272 and 273 IPC is permissible post-FSSA, as the IPC is not a food-related law under Section 89 FSSA, and prosecution under both enactments is allowed without double punishment.
Law Points
- Overriding effect of special law
- prosecution under multiple enactments
- interpretation of Section 89 FSSA
- definition of unsafe food
- applicability of Sections 272 and 273 IPC post-FSSA
