Food Safety and Standards Act Overrides Indian Penal Code; Simultaneous Prosecution Under Both Acts Not Possible : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that if a case is registered against an accused for food adulteration under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), then by virtue of the overriding effect of Section 89 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (“FSSA”), the proceedings under IPC cannot be continued against the accused.

Reversing the decision of the High Court which refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused, the Supreme Court Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol observed that there cannot be simultaneous prosecution under the IPC and FSSA because by virtue of Section 89 of FSSA, Section 59 of FSSA would override the provisions of Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC.

“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.", the Judgment authored by Oka J. said.

The Supreme Court further stated that when the accused is prosecuted for offences under Sections 272 and 273 of IPC, then the offence under Section 59 of FSSA is also attracted against the accused. 

"Therefore, the main Section (Sec.89 of FSSA) clearly gives overriding effect to the 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."

The gist of the dispute was that the FIR was registered against the accused under Sections 272 (Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale) and 273 (Sale of noxious food or drink) of IPC for not possessing a licence to sell the commodity of mustard oil, but he continued to carry on the business of sale. Another allegation was that the accused had adulterated the mustard oil, edible oil and rice brine oil.

The accused approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR, however, the High Court refused to quash the FIR.

Against the High Court's refusal to quash the FIR, the accused preferred the criminal appeal before the Supreme Court. 

The appellant-accused contended that the FSSA being a special enactment would have an overriding effect over other food-related laws. Therefore, the FSSA will exclude the applicability of the IPC for the fields that are covered by the provisions of the special Act.

Accepting the submissions of the accused, the Supreme Cout held that the prosecution under IPC can't be continued because Section 89 of FSSA provides an overriding effect to the 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.

The Supreme Court discussed the objects and purpose of the FSSA and more particularly Section 89 to hold that FSSA overrides the provisions of IPC.

"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 'food­related 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.", the Supreme Court stated.

Section 59 of FSSA Is Stringent Than Sections 272 and 273 of IPC

The Supreme Court stated that Section 59 of FSSA is more stringent than Sections 272 and 273 of IPC because the former does not require the presence of intention as contemplated by the later provisions. 

"Section 273 of the 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. Under Section 59 of the 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 under Section 59 of the FSSA is made out even if there is an absence of intention as provided in Section 272 of the IPC.", the Supreme Court stated.

"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.", the Supreme Court added.

Conclusion

In light of the aforesaid observations, the Supreme Court quashed the pending criminal case against the appellant accused under IPC, however, stated that the concerned authorities are free to act against the appellant as per the FSSA for offences punishable under Section 59 of the FSSA.

Case Details: RAM NATH VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 472 of 2012

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 160

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment