1971 (2) TMI 118 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated vinegar.
2. Implied repeal of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Fruit Products Order.
3. Harmonious coexistence of the Adulteration Act and the Fruit Order.
4. Application of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act.
5. Article 14 challenge regarding prosecutorial discretion.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated vinegar:
The primary question addressed was whether the respondent could be prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated vinegar, despite holding a license under the Fruit Products Order, 1955. The High Court had previously ruled, based on an unreported decision in State v. Raj Kumar, that the respondent could not be prosecuted under the Adulteration Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the provisions of the Adulteration Act were overridden by the Fruit Order.

2. Implied repeal of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Fruit Products Order:
The Court considered the principle of implied repeal, which states that when two Acts are inconsistent or repugnant, the later Act is presumed to repeal the earlier one. It was argued that the Fruit Order, being a later and more specific regulation, implicitly repealed the Adulteration Act concerning the sale of vinegar. The Court, however, found no fatal conflict or inconsistency between the two provisions that would necessitate an implied repeal. The Court emphasized that the legislature does not intend to create confusion and that laws should be presumed to be consistent and harmonious unless explicitly stated otherwise.

3. Harmonious coexistence of the Adulteration Act and the Fruit Order:
The Court examined the history and objectives of both the Adulteration Act and the Essential Commodities Act, under which the Fruit Order was issued. The Adulteration Act aimed to prevent the sale of unwholesome food, while the Essential Commodities Act focused on controlling the production and distribution of essential commodities. The Court concluded that the two statutes could operate in their respective spheres without causing absurdities or grave inconvenience. The provisions of the Adulteration Act and the Fruit Order were found to be supplementary and cumulative, rather than mutually exclusive.

4. Application of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act:
Section 26 of the General Clauses Act was invoked to address concerns about double jeopardy. This section provides that if an act constitutes an offense under multiple laws, the offender can be prosecuted under any of those laws but cannot be punished twice for the same offense. The Court held that this provision would protect the respondents from being penalized twice for the same act, thus allowing both the Adulteration Act and the Fruit Order to coexist without resulting in double punishment.

5. Article 14 challenge regarding prosecutorial discretion:
The respondent's counsel raised a last-minute argument under Article 14 of the Constitution, claiming that the prosecuting authorities had unguided discretion to prosecute under either statute, leading to unequal treatment. The Court did not allow this argument to be raised at this stage, as it had not been addressed in the lower courts. However, the respondent was given the liberty to raise this point in the trial court if so advised.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, rejecting the argument of implied repeal and holding that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Fruit Products Order could operate harmoniously. The cases were remitted to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the law and the observations made in the judgment. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the cases, which had been pending since 1962.