Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, dismissed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash criminal proceedings for adulteration of buffalo milk under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The applicant, a proprietor from Amalner, contended that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 had come into force and repealed the old Act, rendering the complaint filed in 2009 under the old Act unsustainable. The State defended the prosecution arguing that the Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992 was applicable as a regulation under the new Act. The food inspector had collected a sample of buffalo milk on 11 June 2009 and filed a private complaint on 31 December 2009 under sections 7(i) read with 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(m) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The core legal issue was whether the criminal case was maintainable in light of the repeal and savings provisions (sections 97-99) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The court examined sections 97, 98 and 99 of the new Act and found that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was repealed in its entirety only by a notification dated 04 August 2011, effective from 05 August 2011. Consequently, on the date of the offence (11 June 2009) and the date of filing of the complaint (31 December 2009), the old Act was still in force. The transitory provisions saved all standards, liabilities and proceedings initiated under the old Act. The court held that the Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992, which had been deemed a regulation under section 99 of the new Act, was subsequently repealed and was irrelevant to the prosecution; the applicable standards for milk were contained in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The applicant's reliance on section 97(4) of the new Act, which prescribes a three-year limitation for taking cognizance of offences under the repealed Act, was rejected because the transitory provisions, particularly section 98, allowed the continued application of old standards until new standards were specified under the new Act. Since no new standards had been notified, the old standards governed the case, and the limitation provision could not aid the applicant. The court placed reliance on a notification dated 04 August 2011 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which formally repealed the old Act. It also considered four cited precedents but found them distinguishable. In the result, the application was dismissed, the rule discharged, and interim relief vacated.
Headnote
A) Food Adulteration - Repeal of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Effective Date of Repeal - Section 97, Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 stood repealed only upon notification on 04-08-2011 with effect from 05-08-2011; therefore, the Act remained in force on the date of collection of milk (11-06-2009) and the date of filing of complaint (31-12-2009) and the prosecution under the old Act was valid - Held, that the repeal did not affect previous operations, liabilities or proceedings initiated under the old Act (Paras 3-6). B) Food Adulteration - Milk Adulteration - Relevance of Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992 - Sections 99 and 98, Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 r/w Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - The Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992 was deemed a Regulation under the new Act but was subsequently repealed by notification dated 04-08-2011; the prosecution for adulteration of buffalo milk was based on standards under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and the Order had no bearing on the offence - Held, the Milk and Milk Products Order is not relevant in the present milk adulteration case (Paras 7, 4-5). C) Criminal Law - Cognizance of Offences - Limitation under Repeal - Section 97(4), Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - The three-year limitation for taking cognizance of offences under the repealed Act does not bar proceedings where the transitory provisions permit application of old standards until new standards are specified; since the standards had not been changed, the limitation provision cannot aid the accused - Held, that the provision does not apply as the standards were still governed by the old Act and the transitory provisions saved the liability (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 are maintainable after the coming into force of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, in view of sections 97, 98 and 99 of the new Act.
Final Decision
Application dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief vacated. The court held that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was not repealed until 5-8-2011, the transitory provisions preserved liability, and there was no ground to quash the proceeding.
Law Points
- repeal by notification with effect from 05-08-2011
- transitory provisions preserve liability incurred before repeal
- old standards continue to apply until specifically repealed
- section 97(4) limitation not applicable when old standards unchanged
- Milk and Milk Products Order 1992 not relevant to milk adulteration under PFA Act
