9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 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 questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, PFA ). On 28th August 2010, a First Information Report (for short, FIR ) was lodged by a food inspector representing the Regional Food Controller, Agra, against the petitioner alleging the commission of offences under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. The allegation was that, though the appellant did not possess a licence to sell the commodity of mustard oil, he continued to carry on the business of sale. Another allegation was that the petitioner had adulterated the mustard oil, edible oil and rice brine oil. The petitioner approached the High Court to quash the FIR on various grounds. The appellant relied on Allahabad High Court's decision dated 8th September 2010, in the case of M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors [2010 SCC OnLine All 1708] By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. Incidentally, the decision in the case of Pepsico India [2010 SCC OnLine All 1708] is the subject matter of challenge by the State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 476 478 of 2012. In this case, FIR was registered against the respondent on 11th August 2010, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce for the same offence. Reliance was placed upon Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for short, the GC Act ). Learned counsel for the State also relied upon another decision of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather Liquor Ltd. and Ors. [(2003) 7 SCC 389] He submitted that the area of operation of the IPC and a food related law like the FSSA are entirely different and, therefore, the same are mutually exclusive. The learned counsel urged that Section 89 gives overriding effect to the provisions of the FSSA over all other food related laws, as is evident from the title of the Section. He submitted that the IPC is not a food related law by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore, wherever Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC are attracted even after coming into force of the FSSA, the offender can be prosecuted under the said IPC provisions. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the accused invited our attention to the objects and reasons of the FSSA and its preamble. Their submission is that the FSSA is very exhaustive legislation dealing with all aspects of food, including adulteration, unsafe food, etc. Their submission is that Section 89 will have an overri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he substitution of any inferior or cheaper substance whether wholly or in part; or (v) by addition of a substance directly or as an ingredient which is not permitted; or (vi) by the abstraction, wholly or in part, of any of its constituents; or (vii) by the article being so coloured, flavoured or coated, powdered or polished, as to damage or conceal the article or to make it appear better or of greater value than it really is; or (viii) by the presence of any colouring matter or preservatives other than that specified in respect thereof; or (ix) by the article having been infected or infested with worms, weevils, or insects; or (x) by virtue of its being prepared, packed or kept under insanitary conditions; or (xi) by virtue of its being mis branded or sub standard or food containing extraneous matter; or (xii) by virtue of containing pesticides and other contaminants in excess of quantities specified by regulations. (Emphasis added) Thus, the concept of unsafe food is more comprehensive than the concept of adulterated food. Unsafe food means an article of food whose nature, substance or quality is so affected as to render it injurious to health. 10. The word sub standard has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecedence over the prosecution of any other case against the accused in any other Court. In cases where offences are not triable by the Special Court, under Section 73 of the FSSA, there is a power vesting in the Courts of Judicial Magistrates to try the case summarily by following Sections 262 to 265 of the CrPC. Against any decision or order of the Special Court, an appeal is provided to the High Court under Section 76. The appeal lies before a bench consisting of at least two Judges. Another salutary provision is Section 77, which prohibits any Court from taking cognizance of the offence under the FSSA after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the commission of the crime. However, the Commissioner of Food Safety, for reasons recorded, can extend the period from one year to three years. Section 79 of the FSSA overrides Section 29 of CrPC and provides that it shall be lawful for the Court of ordinary jurisdiction to pass any sentence authorised under the FSSA except a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding six years in excess of its powers conferred by Section 29 of CrPC. Section 78 provides that at any time during the trial of any offence under the FSSA, whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and nature of injury caused by unsafe food. The fine is in the range of rupees three lakh to rupees ten lakh. 16. In these appeals, we are dealing only with Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. The same read thus: 272. Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale. Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 273. Sale of noxious food or drink. Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 17. Section 272 is an offence of adulteration of any article of food or drink. The definition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are very exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions in the FSSA for dealing with offences concerning unsafe food. In this context, we must consider the effect of Section 89 of the FSSA. Section 89 reads thus: 89. Overriding effect of this Act over all other food related laws. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect of virtue of any law other than this Act. 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 tit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
