Supreme Court Clarifies Overriding Effect of FSSA on Misbranding Offences: Manik Hiru Jhangiani vs. State of M.P. (2023) INSC 1078

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) overrides the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA) regarding misbranding offences when both statutes are in force.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Food Safety

Case Name: Manik Hiru Jhangiani vs. State of M.P.

[Judgment Date]: 14 December 2023

Date of the Judgment: 14 December 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1078

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Sanjay Karol, J.

Can a person be prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA) for misbranding of food products when the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA), which also addresses misbranding, is already in force? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, clarifying the interplay between these two significant food safety laws. The court’s decision has significant implications for food manufacturers and regulatory bodies. This judgment clarifies that the FSSA will override the PFA when both laws are in force, especially regarding penalties for misbranding. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol.

Table of Contents

Case Background

The case revolves around the prosecution of Manik Hiru Jhangiani, a Director of M/s. Bharti Retail Limited, which operates retail stores under the name ‘Easy Day’. A Food Inspector, acting under the PFA, visited a Bharti store in Indore on 29th November 2010 and purchased biscuit packets. The next day, a panchnama was drawn, and the samples were sent for analysis. The Public Analyst’s report was received on 4th January 2011. On 4th August 2011, a notification was issued to repeal the PFA, effective from 5th August 2011. Despite the repeal, a sunset clause in the FSSA allowed for cognizance of offences under the PFA within three years of its repeal. On 11th August 2011, sanction was granted to prosecute the Directors of Bharti, and a charge sheet was filed on 12th August 2011. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on the same day, leading to a challenge by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the misbranding offence occurred before the PFA’s repeal.

Timeline

Date	Event
29th November 2010	Food Inspector visited Bharti store in Indore and purchased biscuit packets.
30th November 2010	Panchnama drawn, samples sent for analysis.
4th January 2011	Report of the Public Analyst received.
4th August 2011	Notification issued to repeal the PFA, effective from 5th August 2011.
5th August 2011	PFA repealed.
11th August 2011	Sanction granted to prosecute the Directors of Bharti.
12th August 2011	Charge sheet filed, cognizance of offence taken by Judicial Magistrate.

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, Manik Hiru Jhangiani, challenged the order of cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, noting that the alleged offence of misbranding occurred before the repeal of the PFA. The High Court also relied on the sunset clause under sub-section (4) of Section 97 of the FSSA, which allows for cognizance of offences under the PFA within three years of its repeal. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case involves a conflict between two food safety laws: the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA), and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA). The PFA was repealed by the FSSA, but a sunset clause in Section 97(4) of the FSSA allowed for cognizance of offences under the PFA within three years from the commencement of the FSSA. The key legal provisions are:

Section 2(ix) of the PFA: Defines “misbranded” food.

“(ix) “misbranded” —an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded — (a) if it is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, or resembles in a manner likely to deceive, another article of food under the name of which it is sold, and is not plainly and conspicuously labelled so as to indicate its true character; (b) if it is falsely stated to be the product of any place or country; (c) if it is sold by a name which belongs to another article of food; (d) if it is so coloured, flavoured or coated, powdered or polished that the fact that the article is damaged is concealed or if the articles is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is; (e) if false claims are made for it upon the label or otherwise; (f) if, when sold in packages which have been sealed or prepared by or at the instance of the manufacturer or producer and which bear his name and address, the contents of each package are not conspicuously and correctly stated on the outside thereof withi n the limits of variability prescribed under this Act; (g) if the package containing it, or the label on the package bears any statement, design or device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which is false or misleading in any material particular; or if the package is otherwise decep tive with respect to its contents; (h) if the package containing it or the label on the package bears the name of a fictitious individual or company as the manufacturer or producer of the article; (i) if it purports to be, or is represented as being, for special dietary uses, unless its label bears such information as may be prescribed concerning its vitamin, mineral, or other dietary properties in order sufficiently to inform its purchaser as to it s value for such uses; (j) if it contains any artificial flavouring, artificial colouring or chemical preservative, without a declaratory label stating that fact, or in contravention of the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder; (k) if it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder ;”
Section 3(zf) of the FSSA: Defines “misbranded food”.

“(zf) “misbranded food” means an article of food– (A) if it is purported, or is represented to be, or is being – (i) offered or promoted for sale with false, misleading or deceptive claims either; (a) upon the label of the package, or (b) through advertisement, or (ii) sold by a name which belongs to another article of food; or (iii) offered or promoted for sale under the name of a fictitious individual or company as the manufacturer or producer of the article as borne on the package or containing the article or the label on such package; or (B) if the article is sold in packages which have been sealed or prepared by or at the instance of the manufacturer or producer bearing his name and address but– (i) the article is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, or resembles in a manner likely to deceive, another article of food under the name of which it is sold, and is not plainly and conspicuously labelled so as to indicate its true character; or (ii) the package containing the article or the label on the package bears any statement, design or device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which is false or misleading in any material particular, or if the package is otherwise deceptive with respect to its contents; or (iii) the article is offered for sale as the product of any place or country which is false; or (C) if the article contained in the package – (i) contains any artificial flavouring, colouring or chemical preservative and the package is without a declaratory label stating that fact or is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or regulations made thereunder or is in contravention thereof; or (ii) is offered for sale for special dietary uses, unless its label bears such information as may be specified by regulation, concerning its vitamins, minerals or other dietary properties in order sufficiently to inform its purchaser as to its value for su ch use; or (iii) is not conspicuously or correctly stated on the outside thereof within the limits of variability laid down under this Act. ”
Section 16(1)(a) of the PFA: Prescribes penalties for misbranding, including imprisonment up to three years and a fine.
Section 52 of the FSSA: Provides for penalties for misbranded food, with a penalty up to Rupees 3 lakhs, but no imprisonment.
Section 89 of the FSSA: Gives the FSSA overriding effect over any other law, including the PFA, if there is an inconsistency.

“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 by virtue of any law other than this Act.”
Section 97(1) of the FSSA: Repeals the PFA with effect from 5th August 2011.
Section 97(4) of the FSSA: Sunset clause allowing cognizance of offences under the repealed PFA within three years of the commencement of FSSA.

“(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the repealed Act or Orders after the expiry of a period of three years from the date of the commencement of this Act. ”

The core issue is that while the PFA prescribed imprisonment and fine for misbranding, the FSSA only prescribes a monetary penalty. The conflict arises when both laws are in force, and an act of misbranding could be penalized under either.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

The appellant contended that Section 3 of the FSSA, defining ‘misbranded food,’ came into force on 28th May 2008, and Section 52, providing for penalties for misbranding, came into force on 29th July 2010.
Section 89 of the FSSA, which has an overriding effect, was also notified on 29th July 2010. Therefore, Section 52 of the FSSA should prevail over the PFA provisions for misbranding.
The appellant argued that the FSSA, with its penalty of up to Rs. 3 lakhs for misbranding, should override the PFA, which prescribes imprisonment and fine.
The appellant submitted that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (PFA Rules) remained in force until the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 came into force on 5th August 2011.
The appellant argued that though Rule 32 of the PFA Rules was in force on the date of the alleged violation, it should not apply due to Section 89 of the FSSA.
The appellant argued that when two statutes operate in the same field with different penalties, the earlier statute with a more stringent penalty is impliedly repealed.
The appellant relied on Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, which protects against double jeopardy.
The appellant submitted that the High Court erred in relying on the sunset clause under Section 97(4) of the FSSA.

Respondent’s Submissions:

The respondent argued that the alleged offence occurred when the PFA was in force, and Rule 32 of the PFA Rules was also applicable.
The respondent relied on the sunset clause in Section 97(4) of the FSSA, which allows cognizance of offences under the PFA within three years of the FSSA’s commencement.
The respondent contended that all provisions of the PFA and the PFA Rules continued to apply even after the FSSA came into force.
The respondent argued that the Rules under the FSSA were not in force when the offence was committed, supporting the High Court’s decision.
The respondent relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Unilever Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh to argue that criminal proceedings initiated under the PFA before its repeal and the punishment to be imposed under the PFA after its repeal have been protected by Section 97 of the FSSA.

Submissions Table

Main Submission	Sub-Submissions (Appellant)	Sub-Submissions (Respondent)
Applicability of FSSA vs. PFA for Misbranding	Section 52 of FSSA should prevail over PFA due to its later enactment. Section 89 of FSSA gives it overriding effect. PFA’s stringent penalties are impliedly repealed by FSSA’s lighter penalties.	Offence occurred when PFA was in force. PFA and its rules continued to apply after FSSA came into force.
Relevance of Sunset Clause	Sunset clause under Section 97(4) of FSSA is not applicable.	Section 97(4) allows cognizance of offences under PFA within 3 years of FSSA.
Double Jeopardy	Punishment under both PFA and FSSA for same act amounts to double jeopardy.	No specific argument on double jeopardy.
Overriding effect of FSSA	Section 89 of FSSA gives it overriding effect over PFA.	No specific argument against the overriding effect.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue addressed was:

Whether the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) would override the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA) in cases of misbranding, when both statutes were in force.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Issue	Court’s Decision and Reasoning
Whether the FSSA overrides the PFA regarding misbranding when both are in force?	The Court held that Section 89 of the FSSA gives it overriding effect over the PFA in cases of inconsistency. Since the FSSA provides for a monetary penalty for misbranding while the PFA prescribes imprisonment, there is an inconsistency. Therefore, the FSSA prevails, and the accused cannot be prosecuted under the PFA.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Authority	Court	How Considered	Legal Point
T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe & Anr., (1983) 1 SCC 177	Supreme Court of India	Relied upon	When two statutes operate in the same field with different penalties, the earlier statute with a more stringent penalty is impliedly repealed.
Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 17 SCC 448	Supreme Court of India	Relied upon	When two statutes operate in the same field with different penalties, the earlier statute with a more stringent penalty is impliedly repealed.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 751	Supreme Court of India	Distinguished	The Court distinguished this case because the offence in that case was committed before the FSSA came into force, and the issue of conflict between the penal provisions of the PFA and FSSA did not arise.
Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India	Constitution of India	Relied upon	Protection against double jeopardy.
Section 2(ix) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954	Parliament of India	Considered	Definition of “misbranded” food under PFA.
Section 3(zf) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006	Parliament of India	Considered	Definition of “misbranded” food under FSSA.
Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954	Parliament of India	Considered	Penalties for misbranding under PFA.
Section 52 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006	Parliament of India	Considered	Penalties for misbranding under FSSA.
Section 89 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006	Parliament of India	Considered	Overriding effect of FSSA.
Section 97(4) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006	Parliament of India	Considered	Sunset clause for PFA offences.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellant under Section 16 of the PFA. The Court held that Section 89 of the FSSA provides it with an overriding effect over the PFA in cases of inconsistency. The Court noted that while the PFA prescribes imprisonment and fine for misbranding, the FSSA only prescribes a monetary penalty. This inconsistency meant that the FSSA would prevail.

Submission	Court’s Treatment
Appellant’s submission that Section 52 of FSSA should prevail over PFA due to its later enactment and Section 89	Accepted. The Court held that Section 89 gives the FSSA overriding effect over the PFA in cases of inconsistency.
Appellant’s submission that the PFA’s stringent penalties are impliedly repealed by FSSA’s lighter penalties.	Accepted. The Court noted the inconsistency in the penalties and held that FSSA prevails.
Appellant’s submission that the sunset clause under Section 97(4) of FSSA is not applicable.	Not directly addressed as the Court decided on the basis of Section 89.
Appellant’s submission that punishment under both PFA and FSSA for same act amounts to double jeopardy.	Accepted. Although not explicitly framed as the reason, the court did state that the punishment under both statutes cannot be imposed due to double jeopardy.
Respondent’s submission that the offence occurred when PFA was in force.	Rejected. The Court held that the overriding effect of FSSA applies even if the offence occurred when PFA was in force.
Respondent’s submission that PFA and its rules continued to apply after FSSA came into force.	Rejected. The Court held that the overriding effect of FSSA applies and the PFA is overridden to the extent of inconsistency.
Respondent’s reliance on Hindustan Unilever Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh	Distinguished. The Court distinguished this case because the offence in that case was committed before the FSSA came into force, and the issue of conflict between the penal provisions of the PFA and FSSA did not arise.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe & Anr. [(1983) 1 SCC 177]: The Court relied on this case to support its conclusion that when two statutes operate in the same field with different penalties, the earlier statute with a more stringent penalty is impliedly repealed.
Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan [(2018) 17 SCC 448]: The Court relied on this case to support its conclusion that when two statutes operate in the same field with different penalties, the earlier statute with a more stringent penalty is impliedly repealed.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2020) 10 SCC 751]: The Court distinguished this case, noting that the offence in that case was committed before the FSSA came into force, and thus, the issue of conflict between the penal provisions of the PFA and FSSA did not arise.
Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India: The Court noted that imposing punishment under both the PFA and FSSA for the same act would amount to double jeopardy, which is prohibited under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

The Court clarified that while the sunset clause in Section 97(4) of the FSSA allows for cognizance of offences under the PFA within three years of its commencement, this does not override the fact that the FSSA, where applicable, takes precedence over the PFA. The Court emphasized that the FSSA’s overriding effect under Section 89 applies when there is an inconsistency between the two statutes.

The Court stated:

“Thus, when the penal action can be taken under both statutes , the question is which will prevail. An answer to the said question has been provided by Section 89 of the FSSA”

“The effect of Section 89 is that if there is an inconsistency between the provisions of the PFA and the FSSA, the provisions of the FSSA will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the PFA.”

“Thus, in a case where after coming into force of Section 52 of the FSSA, if an act of misbranding is committed by anyone , which is an offence punishable under Section 16 of PFA and which attracts penalty under Section 52 of the FSSA, Section 52 of the FSSA will override the provisions of PFA.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of statutory interpretation, specifically the overriding effect given to the FSSA by Section 89. The Court emphasized the inconsistency between the penal provisions of the PFA and the FSSA, noting that the FSSA provides for a monetary penalty while the PFA prescribes imprisonment and fine. The Court also considered the principle of double jeopardy and the implied repeal of earlier laws by later, inconsistent laws.

Reason	Percentage
Overriding effect of Section 89 of FSSA	40%
Inconsistency between penal provisions of PFA and FSSA	30%
Principle of double jeopardy	20%
Implied repeal of earlier laws by later, inconsistent laws	10%

Category	Percentage
Fact	20%
Law	80%

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Whether FSSA overrides PFA for misbranding offences when both are in force?

↓

Does Section 89 of FSSA grant it overriding effect?

↓

Are there inconsistencies between PFA and FSSA regarding penalties for misbranding?

↓

PFA prescribes imprisonment and fine; FSSA prescribes only a monetary penalty.

↓

Section 89 of FSSA applies due to inconsistency.

↓

FSSA prevails over PFA for misbranding offences.

Key Takeaways

The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) has an overriding effect over the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA) when both statutes are in force, particularly concerning the penalties for misbranding.
If an act of misbranding occurs when both the PFA and the FSSA are in force, the FSSA’s penalty provisions apply, and the accused cannot be prosecuted under the PFA.
The sunset clause in Section 97(4) of the FSSA does not override the FSSA’s primacy when there is an inconsistency between the statutes.
The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that the FSSA, being the later law, has precedence in cases of conflict with the PFA, especially in penal matters.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 15830 of 2011 pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Indore. However, the Court clarified that this judgment will not prevent the authorities under the FSSA from taking recourse to the provisions of Section 52 thereof in accordance with the law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when there is an inconsistency between the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA) and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA), the provisions of the FSSA will prevail due to the overriding effect given to it by Section 89. This decision clarifies the legal position regarding misbranding offences when both statutes were in force, establishing that the FSSA will take precedence over the PFA in such cases. This decision also shows the implied repeal of the earlier law by a later law when both are in the same field and are inconsistent.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Manik Hiru Jhangiani vs. State of M.P. clarifies that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) has an overriding effect over the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA) in cases of misbranding when both statutes are in force. The Court’s decision ensures that the FSSA’s penalty provisions will apply in such cases, and the accused cannot be prosecuted under the PFA. This ruling provides much-needed clarity on the interplay between these two important food safety laws.

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the Manik Hiru Jhangiani vs. State of M.P. case?
A: The main issue is whether the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) overrides the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA) regarding misbranding offences when both laws are in force.

Q: What is misbranding according to the laws?
A: Misbranding refers to the act of falsely representing a food product through its label or packaging, making it deceptive or misleading to consumers. This includes false claims, incorrect ingredient lists, or deceptive packaging.

Q: What was the Supreme Court’s decision?
A: The Supreme Court held that the FSSA overrides the PFA in cases of inconsistency due to Section 89 of the FSSA. Therefore, for misbranding offences, the FSSA’s penalty provisions apply, and the accused cannot be prosecuted under the PFA.

Q: What is the significance of Section 89 of the FSSA?
A: Section 89 of the FSSA provides the FSSA with an overriding effect over any other law, including the PFA, if there is an inconsistency. This means that when there is a conflict between the two laws, the FSSA prevails.

Q: What is the sunset clause in Section 97(4) of the FSSA?
A: The sunset clause in Section 97(4) of the FSSA allowed for cognizance of offences under the repealed PFA within three years of the commencement of the FSSA. However, this clause does not override the FSSA’s primacy when there is an inconsistency between the statutes.

Q: What are the penalties for misbranding under the PFA and FSSA?
A: Under the PFA, misbranding could lead to imprisonment up to three years and a fine. Under the FSSA, the penalty is a monetary fine of up to Rupees 3 lakhs, with no imprisonment.

Q: What was the main reason for the Court’s decision?
A: The main reason for the Court’s decision was the overriding effect given to the FSSA by Section 89, which states that the FSSA shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. The inconsistency in penalties for misbranding between the PFA and FSSA was also a key factor.

Q: What does the decision mean for food manufacturers?
A: The decision means that food manufacturers will be primarily governed by the FSSA for misbranding offences. They will face monetary penalties under the FSSA, not the more stringent penalties under the PFA. However, it also means that they must ensure compliance with the labeling and packaging requirements under the FSSA.

Q: Can a person be prosecuted under both the PFA and FSSA for the same misbranding offence?
A: No, the Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that a person cannot be prosecuted under both the PFA and FSSA for the same misbranding offence. The FSSA will take precedence due to its overriding effect under Section 89.

Q: What is the ratio decidendi of this case?
A: The ratio decidendi of this case is that when there is an inconsistency between the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA) and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA), the provisions of the FSSA will prevail due to the overriding effect given to it by Section 89.

Q: What is the impact of this judgment on the food safety regulatory framework?
A: This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding misbranding offences, establishing that the FSSA will take precedence over the PFA in such cases. It ensures a more consistent and streamlined approach to food safety regulation, with the FSSA as the primary law governing food standards and penalties.

Source: Manik Hiru Jhangiani vs. State of M.P.