Food Safety and Standards Act Overrides IPC in Food Adulteration Cases: Supreme Court Judgment (21 February 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 21 February 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 138
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Sanjay Karol, J.
Can a person be prosecuted under both the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for the same act of food adulteration? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying that the FSSA, a comprehensive law on food safety, overrides the IPC in matters concerning unsafe food. This judgment settles the conflict between the two laws, ensuring that cases of food adulteration are dealt with primarily under the FSSA. The judgment was authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka, with Justice Sanjay Karol concurring.

Case Background

The appeals before the Supreme Court arose from various cases in Uttar Pradesh where individuals were prosecuted under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC for food adulteration. These prosecutions were initiated following a State government order on 11th May 2010, which authorized authorities to prosecute under both the IPC and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA).

One case involved Ram Nath, who was accused of selling adulterated mustard oil, edible oil, and rice brine oil without a license. Another case involved M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd., where the allegation was of adulteration in cold drinks. The Allahabad High Court, in the Pepsico case, held that the FSSA, which came into force on 29th July 2010, would override all other food-related laws, including the IPC. Consequently, the High Court ruled that the police lacked the authority to investigate cases under the FSSA.

Other appeals challenged orders where the High Court either quashed or refused to quash FIRs registered under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. The core issue was whether the FSSA’s provisions override the IPC in cases of food adulteration, particularly after the FSSA came into effect.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Allahabad High Court initially dealt with multiple petitions seeking to quash FIRs registered under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. The High Court, in the case of M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd., took the view that the FSSA would have an overriding effect on all food-related laws, including the IPC, from 29th July 2010. This decision led to a conflict with other decisions of the High Court where it had refused to quash FIRs under the IPC. The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the Pepsico India decision. These conflicting views of the High Court led to the matter being taken up by the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) and its interplay with Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The FSSA aims to consolidate laws relating to food and establish a single regulatory framework. Key definitions under the FSSA include:

• ✓ **Unsafe Food:** Section 3(zz) of the FSSA defines unsafe food as any article of food whose nature, substance, or quality is so affected as to render it injurious to health. This includes food that is poisonous, contains harmful substances, or is prepared under unhygienic conditions.
  
  “(zz) “unsafe food” means an article of food whose nature, substance or quality is so affected as to render it injurious to health:— …”
• ✓ **Sub-standard Food:** Section 3(zx) defines sub-standard food as an article that does not meet specified standards but is not unsafe.
  
  “(zx) “sub-standard”, an article of food shall be deemed to be sub-standard if it does not meet the specified standards but not so as to render the article of food unsafe;”
• ✓ **Adulterant:** Section 3(a) defines adulterant as any material that could make food unsafe, sub-standard, misbranded, or contain extraneous matter.
  
  “(a) “adulterant” means any material which is or could be employed for making the food unsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded or containing extraneous matter;”

Section 48 of the FSSA specifies how food can be rendered injurious to health, including adding substances, using harmful ingredients, or abstracting constituents.

“(1) A person may render any article of food injurious to health by means of one or more of the following operations, namely:— (a) adding any article or substance to the food; (b) using any article or substance as an ingredient in the preparation of the food; (c) abstracting any constituents from the food; or (d) subjecting the food to any other process or treatment, with the knowledge that it may be sold or offered for sale or distributed for human consumption.”

Section 59 of the FSSA outlines penalties for manufacturing, storing, selling, or distributing unsafe food.

“59. Punishment for unsafe food.—Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable,— …”

The relevant provisions of the IPC are:

• ✓ **Section 272, IPC:** Deals with adulteration of food or drink intended for sale, making it noxious.
  
  “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.”
• ✓ **Section 273, IPC:** Addresses the sale of noxious food or drink.
  
  “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.”

Section 89 of the FSSA provides an overriding effect to the FSSA over all other laws.

“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.”

Arguments

The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that there is no bar to trying an offender under two different enactments, relying on the principle that an offender can be prosecuted under multiple laws but cannot be punished twice for the same offense, as per Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The State contended that the IPC and FSSA operate in different areas, with the FSSA being a food-related law, and the IPC not being one. Therefore, the State argued that Section 89 of the FSSA only overrides other food-related laws and not the IPC. They relied on Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India & Ors. [2014] 13 SCC 314 and State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan & Ors. [2019] 18 SCC 145 to support their claim that simultaneous prosecutions are permissible.

The accused argued that the FSSA is a comprehensive legislation dealing with all aspects of food, including adulteration and unsafe food. They submitted that Section 89 of the FSSA has an overriding effect on the provisions of the IPC. They also relied on Section 5 of the IPC, which states that special laws remain unaffected by the IPC. The accused relied upon Jeewan Kumar Raut & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2009] 7 SCC 526 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aman Mittal and Anr [2019] 19 SCC 740 to support their argument that the FSSA, being a special law, excludes the application of the IPC in areas covered by the FSSA.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the view taken in the case of Pepsico India, that the FSSA overrides other food-related laws including the IPC, is correct.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions and authorities, ultimately concluding that the FSSA overrides the IPC in matters related to food safety.

Treatment of Submissions and Authorities

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the comprehensive nature of the FSSA and the explicit overriding provision in Section 89. The court emphasized the following points:

• ✓ The FSSA is a comprehensive legislation dealing with all aspects of food and food safety.
• ✓ Section 89 of the FSSA clearly states that its provisions will have an overriding effect over any other law.
• ✓ The FSSA provides exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions for dealing with offenses concerning unsafe food.
• ✓ The court noted that the offense under Section 59 of the FSSA is more stringent than the offenses under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC.

Sentiment Analysis Table

Fact:Law Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning

The Court reasoned that while the IPC addresses adulteration, the FSSA provides a more comprehensive and stringent framework for dealing with unsafe food. The Court specifically noted that Section 59 of the FSSA, which deals with unsafe food, is broader in scope than Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. The Court also emphasized that the FSSA has an overriding effect over all other laws, including the IPC, in matters related to food safety.

The Court rejected the argument that both the FSSA and IPC can operate simultaneously in food adulteration cases. The court stated that Section 89 of the FSSA gives it an overriding effect over any other law, including the IPC, in areas covered by the FSSA.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“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 ‘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.”

“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.”

“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 Court did not have any dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

The key takeaways from this judgment are:

• ✓ The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) has an overriding effect over the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in matters related to food safety and adulteration.
• ✓ Prosecutions for food adulteration should primarily be initiated under the FSSA, specifically Section 59, rather than Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC.
• ✓ The Supreme Court quashed the FIRs registered under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC in the cases before it, allowing authorities to initiate fresh proceedings under the FSSA if necessary.
• ✓ The FSSA provides a more comprehensive and stringent framework for dealing with unsafe food compared to the IPC.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the FIRs registered under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC and granted liberty to the authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law, specifically under Section 59 of the FSSA, if not already initiated.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) overrides the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in matters related to food safety and adulteration due to the overriding effect given by Section 89 of the FSSA. This judgment clarifies that prosecutions for food adulteration should primarily be initiated under the FSSA, specifically Section 59, rather than Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. This changes the previous position where prosecutions were being initiated under both the IPC and the FSSA.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies the legal position regarding food adulteration cases, establishing the primacy of the FSSA over the IPC. This decision ensures that cases related to unsafe food are dealt with under the comprehensive framework provided by the FSSA. The court quashed the prosecutions under the IPC and allowed the authorities to initiate proceedings under the FSSA.