| CITATION | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 479 OF 2012 &476478 OF 2012 & CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP(Crl.) No. 1379 of 2011 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | February 21, 2024 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | RAM NATH |
| RESPONDENT | THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. |
| BENCH | ABHAY S. OKA, SANJAY KAROL, JJ. |
INTRODUCTION
The case of Ram Nath v. State Of U.P, comprising question pertains to whether provisions of a special law i.e. Food Safety and Security Act have overriding effect over the provision of Indian Penal Code. This case begins with Controversy over the case of M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors regarding sale of adulterated food items. Criminal appeal was filed before Allahabad high Court and same was declined to quash an offence punishable under sections 272 and 273 of the IPC, the Special Leave Petition was placed.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- Initially, the FIR was lodged by the Food Inspector representing food controller, Agra regarding commission of offenses under section 272 and 273 of IPC. The allegation was that appellant did not possess a license to sale the commodity of mustard oil, he continued to carry on the business of sale. Another allegation was made regarding that he had adulterated the mustard oil, edible oil and rice brine oil. He approaches the High Court to quash the order.
- The appellant is accused of manufacturing, storing, selling, distributing, or importing food for human consumption that is deemed unsafe under the FSSA.
- The appellant was dissatisfied with a prior judgement made by the Allahabad High Court. So, under 482 of CRPC, he filed a petition seeking quashing prosecution of offences punishable under section 272 and 273 of IPC.
- The case involves an alleged offence under Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA). Section 59 of the FSSA outlines punishments for dealing with unsafe food, ranging from imprisonment for three months to life and fines from three to ten lakh rupees, depending on the extent of harm caused.
ISSUES RAISED
- The primary issue is whether the provisions of the FSSA, which deals comprehensively with food safety, have an overriding effect on Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC.
- The appellant argues that, following the enactment of the FSSA, the provisions of this specific food-related law should take precedence over the general provisions of the IPC.
- This involves a dispute over whether the authorities have the power to initiate prosecutions under both the FSSA and Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC simultaneously.
- The appellant challenges the validity of the First Information Report (FIR) filed against them, citing the applicability of FSSA and relying on a previous decision involving a similar matter.
- There is a disagreement on the interpretation of specific provisions within the FSSA, particularly whether the FSSA overrides other food-related laws, including IPC sections related to food adulteration.
CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT
- The appellant contended that, following the decision in the case of M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd. & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) should have an overriding effect on other food-related laws, including Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. The appellant relied on the interpretation that the police have no authority or jurisdiction to investigate cases under the FSSA, as established in the Pepsico India case.
- It was also argued that the FSSA, being a specific and exhaustive, substantive and procedural legislation on food safety including all the aspects of food like adulteration, unsafe food. Thus, Section 89 of the FSSA, claiming an overriding effect of the FSSA over all other laws related to food.
- It Contends that the offences under Section 59 of the FSSA are more stringent, providing for higher penalties compared to Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC.
.
CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT
- The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that there is no bar to the trial of an offender under two different enactments. The contention was that an offender may be prosecuted under either one or both enactments but shall not be punished twice for the same offense. The State relied on the General Clauses Act and contended that the IPC and the FSSA operate in different areas, and the IPC is not a food-related law.
- The respondent contends that simultaneous prosecutions can be initiated under both the FSSA and the IPC. Relies on previous court decisions, including Swami Achyutanand Tirth and the State of Maharashtra, supporting the idea of simultaneous prosecutions.
- They argued that Section 89 of the FSSA does not preclude concurrent proceedings under IPC sections.
JUDGEMENT
- The court analyzes Section 89 of the FSSA, emphasizing its overriding effect over all other laws, including IPC provisions. It concludes that the offences under Section 59 of the FSSA are more stringent and, by virtue of Section 89, will override Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC.
- Rejects the possibility of simultaneous prosecutions, stating that Section 59 of the FSSA prevails, and the authorities can only proceed under the FSSA.
- Quashes the charges under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC, providing the authorities with the liberty to initiate proceedings under the FSSA.
- This judgment clarifies the hierarchy between the FSSA and IPC in cases related to food safety, highlighting the specific and overriding nature of the FSSA. The decision also addresses the question of simultaneous prosecutions and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar legal conflicts.
ANALYSIS
- The court analyzed the provisions of the FSSA, particularly Section 89, which gives an overriding effect to its provisions over other food-related laws. The court examined definitions such as “unsafe food,” “substandard,” and “adulterant” under the FSSA. It noted the comprehensive nature of the FSSA, covering various aspects of food safety.
- The court also considered the specific offenses and penalties outlined in Chapter IX of the FSSA, emphasizing the intention to consolidate laws related to food. Provisions such as the establishment of Special Courts, the power to proceed against importers, manufacturers, distributors, or dealers, and restrictions on taking cognizance of offenses after a certain period were crucial aspects considered by the court.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the court affirmed the overriding effect of the FSSA on other food-related laws, including Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. It rejected the appellant’s contentions, upholding the order of the High Court and providing a significant interpretation of the interplay between the FSSA and IPC in cases related to food safety.
REFERENCES
- chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.sci.gov.in/wp-admin/adminajax.php?action=get_judgements_pdf&diary_no=334062010&type=j&order_date=2024-02-21
This Article is written by Ritika Gupta student of Asian Law College, Noida (ALC); Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
