Explore the nuanced legal interpretation provided by the court regarding the overarching impact of the Food Safety and Standards Act within the domain of food-related laws. This case summary focuses on the pivotal analysis conducted by the court, shedding light on the intricate legal principles at play in ensuring food safety standards are upheld.
Facts
- Appellant challenged the order of the Allahabad High Court dated 5 October 2010.
- Allahabad High Court had dismissed the petition filed by the appellant.
- Appellant relied on a previous decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
- Allegation against the appellant was that they conducted business without a license to sell mustard oil.
- Allegation of adulteration in the cold drinks manufactured by the respondent.
- State of Uttar Pradesh granted power to initiate prosecutions under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
- An FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 28 August 2010 by a food inspector for offences under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC.
- Petitioner was also alleged to have adulterated mustard oil, edible oil, and rice brine oil.
- Petitioner approached the High Court to quash the FIR on multiple grounds.
- Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No 1379 of 2011 challenges the order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing a petition under Section 482 of CrPC to quash an FIR for offences under Section 272 and 273 of the IPC.
- Pepsico India case held that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 has overriding effect over food-related laws including IPC sections 272 and 273, from 29 July 2010 onwards.
- Police have no jurisdiction to investigate cases under the FSSA as per the Pepsico India ruling.
- Criminal Appeal No 479 of 2012 objects to the High Court’s decision to not quash an offence under IPC sections 272 and 273.
Also Read: Analysis of Improper Grant of Bail in the Director of Enforcement v. Bablu Sonkar Case
Arguments
- The petitioner’s submission is that Section 89 of the FSSA will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the IPC.
- Counsel for the State cites Section 5 and Section 41 of the IPC to argue that any special law, like the FSSA, will remain unaffected by the provisions of the IPC.
- It is argued that the IPC and the FSSA operate in different areas and are mutually exclusive.
- Section 89 gives overriding effect to the provisions of the FSSA over all other food-related laws.
- The IPC is not considered a food-related law.
- When Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC are applicable, offenders can still be prosecuted under the IPC.
- The accused’s counsel points to the objectives and preamble of the FSSA, arguing it is comprehensive legislation covering various aspects of food.
- There is no bar to trying an offender under two different enactments, but they cannot be punished twice for the same offence.
- Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is cited to support the argument that an offender may be prosecuted under one or both enactments but cannot be punished twice for the same offence.
- Provisions of the FSSA were brought into force on different dates by notifications
- The last notification was issued on 29 July 2010
- All provisions of the FSSA were in force as of 29 July 2010 except Section 22
Also Read: Withdrawal of Offending Statements in Defamation Case
Analysis
- The decision in the case of Pepsico India is being challenged by the State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No 476-478 of 2012.
- The decision in Pepsico India is under scrutiny regarding its correctness.
- The case is being compared to the decision in Jeewan Kumar Raut & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation.
- The controversy revolves around whether the view taken in Pepsico India is accurate.
- The FSSA provides exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions for dealing with offenses related to unsafe food
- Offenses subject to appeal were registered after 29 July 2010, making Section 59 of the FSSA relevant
- The decision in Swami Achyutanand Tirth case does not address the applicability of Section 59 of the FSSA
- Section 59 of the FSSA imposes more stringent punishment for unsafe food
- FSSA provisions have an overriding effect on other food-related laws
- The definition of food in the FSSA includes a liquid; provisions include defences against prosecution
- Adulteration that makes food noxious is punishable under Section 272 of the IPC
- Cognizance of offenses under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC has a one-year limitation
- Intent is an essential component in determining the offense under Section 59 of the FSSA
- The FSSA is comprehensive, allowing for trial by Courts of Judicial Magistrates and appeals to the High Court
- FSSA ensures an overriding effect on its provisions compared to other laws in the context of food
- The FSSA mandates a single window for regulating food-related activities
- Section 59 of the FSSA does not require proof of intention
- Time limitation for offenses under the FSSA is one year, extendable to three years by the Commissioner of Food Safety
- Adding adulterants that render food injurious makes it unsafe food
- Section 48(1) outlines the various ways in which an article of food can be rendered injurious to health.
- Sections 49 to 58 deal with penalties for offenses related to food safety.
- Sections 59 to 64 and 66 specifically address food safety-related offenses.
- Section 74 empowers the government to establish Special Courts for trying serious offenses.
- Sub-standard food does not necessarily constitute unsafe food according to the definitions provided.
- The concept of unsafe food under Section 3 is comprehensive and includes various criteria that render food injurious to health.
- Section 79 allows the Court of ordinary jurisdiction to pass certain sentences under the FSSA.
- Section 78 empowers the Court to take action against importers, manufacturers, distributors, or dealers during trial.
- Section 273 incorporates the requirement of knowledge or reasonable belief regarding the noxious nature of food or drink being sold.
- Section 272 and 273 of the IPC address adulteration and sale of noxious food or drink respectively.
- Section 89 asserts the overriding effect of the FSSA over other food-related laws.
- Simultaneous prosecutions can occur under different statutes, but conviction and sentence can only be in one
- Section 26 of the GC Act supports this proposition
- Section 89 of the FSSA will override the provisions of Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC
Also Read: Acquittal in IPC Offences: Lack of Test Identification Parade
Decision
- Criminal Appeal Nos. 476-478 of 2012 are dismissed.
- Authorities are free to act in accordance with the FSSA for offences punishable under Section 59 of the FSSA.
- Offences subject to the appeals are quashed with liberty to authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings if not already done.
- No costs ordered.
- 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 the impugned orders are set aside.
Case Title: RAM NATH Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2024 INSC 138)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000472-000472 / 2012
