2024 (2) TMI 1477 - SC - Indian Laws

Interplay between the provisions of Chapter IX of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) and Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - HELD THAT - There are very exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions in the FSSA for dealing with offences concerning unsafe food. As per Section 89 of the FSSA, the title of the section indeed indicates that the intention is to give an overriding effect to the FSSA over all foodrelated laws . However, in the main Section, there is no such restriction confined to food related 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 settled law is that if the main Section is unambiguous, the aid of the title of the Section or its marginal note cannot be taken to interpret the same. Only if it is ambiguous, the title of the section or the marginal note can be looked into to understand the intention of the legislature. Therefore, the main Section 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. The decision of this Court in the case of Swami Achyutanand Tirth 2013 (12) TMI 1753 - SUPREME COURT does not deal with this contingency at all. In the case of the State of Maharashtra 2018 (9) TMI 1803 - SUPREME COURT , the question of the effect of Section 97 of the FSSA did not arise for consideration of this Court. The Court dealt with simultaneous prosecutions and concluded that there could be simultaneous prosecutions, but conviction and sentence can be only in one. This proposition is based on what is incorporated in section 26 of the GC Act - there are 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 impugned orders are set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Interplay between Chapter IX of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) and Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Overriding effect of FSSA over IPC regarding food-related offences.
3. Simultaneous prosecution under FSSA and IPC.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interplay between Chapter IX of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) and Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

The core issue revolves around whether the provisions of the FSSA, which came into force on 29th July 2010, override the provisions of Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC concerning food adulteration and sale of noxious food. The FSSA is comprehensive legislation dealing with all aspects of food safety, including the definition of "unsafe food" and "sub-standard" food. The Act provides a detailed framework for offences and penalties related to food safety, which is more exhaustive than the IPC provisions. The FSSA defines unsafe food as any article of food whose nature, substance, or quality is affected to render it injurious to health, covering a broader spectrum than the IPC's definition of adulteration and noxious food.

2. Overriding effect of FSSA over IPC regarding food-related offences:

Section 89 of the FSSA provides an overriding effect over any other law, including the IPC, concerning food-related offences. The provision explicitly states that the FSSA will prevail over any inconsistent laws, indicating that the FSSA's comprehensive framework for food safety offences takes precedence over the IPC. The court emphasized that the FSSA, being a special law, excludes the applicability of the IPC for offences covered by the FSSA. The FSSA's penalties are more stringent, with imprisonment terms ranging from three months to life, and fines between three lakh to ten lakh rupees, compared to the IPC's maximum punishment of six months imprisonment or a fine.

3. Simultaneous prosecution under FSSA and IPC:

The court addressed the possibility of simultaneous prosecution under both the FSSA and IPC. It concluded that due to the overriding nature of the FSSA, simultaneous prosecution under both statutes is not permissible. The court relied on Section 89 of the FSSA, which provides that the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other law, including the IPC. Therefore, offences under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC are subsumed under Section 59 of the FSSA, which deals with the punishment for unsafe food. The court clarified that while simultaneous prosecutions are generally possible, conviction and sentence can only occur under one statute, and in this case, the FSSA takes precedence.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and quashed the offences under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC, granting liberty to the authorities to initiate proceedings under the FSSA if not already initiated. The decision underscores the FSSA's comprehensive and overriding framework for addressing food safety offences, effectively superseding the IPC provisions in this domain. The court dismissed the appeals challenging the decision, reinforcing the FSSA's primacy in regulating food safety and related offences.