The appellant contested the decision made by the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) aimed at nullifying the prosecution for violations under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. In 2010, the Uttar Pradesh State authorized authorities to commence prosecutions under these IPC provisions and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA). Subsequently, an FIR was filed by a food inspector, representing the Regional Food Controller, Agra, accusing the appellant of committing the aforementioned offenses.
The Supreme Court has established a precedent that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA), particularly Section 59 (Punishment for unsafe food), holds precedence over the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Sections 272 (states that, individuals who deliberately contaminate any food or beverage with the intention to cause harm and are aware that it will be sold, can face penalties including imprisonment for a maximum of six months, a fine of up to one thousand rupees, or both.) and 273 (Anyone who vends, or presents for sale, any item as food or drink, which has been rendered harmful or has deteriorated to a state unsuitable for consumption, with knowledge or reasonable belief that it is harmful, shall be liable to imprisonment for up to six months, or a fine of up to one thousand rupees, or both.), in matters concerning food adulteration. This landmark decision emerged from a series of appeals addressing the interplay between the FSSA and the IPC.
Also Read – “Can’t Be Tolerated”: Supreme Court Demands Evidence From Patanjali In ‘False’ Ads Case (lawchakra.in)
Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol clarified the legislative intent behind the FSSA, stating,
“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.”
This assertion underscores the court’s interpretation that the FSSA, being a specialized law dealing with food safety, should take precedence over the general provisions of the IPC.
The court further elaborated on the scope of the FSSA compared to the IPC, explaining,
“Therefore, the main Section (Sec.89 of FSSA) 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. In this case, we are concerned only with Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. When the offences under Section 272 and 273 of the IPC are made out, even the offence under Section 59 of the FSSA will be attracted.”
This highlights the comprehensive nature of the FSSA in addressing issues related to food safety and standards.
The Supreme Court’s decision was based on an appeal against the High Court’s refusal to quash an FIR registered under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC for the sale of adulterated food items. The appellant argued that the FSSA, as a special law, should supersede the IPC in matters of food adulteration. The Supreme Court agreed, noting,
“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 ‘foodrelated 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.”
Additionally, the court pointed out that Section 59 of the FSSA is more stringent than the IPC sections in question, as it does not require the element of intention for a conviction.
“Section 273 of the IPC applies when a person sells or, offers or exposes for sale any article of food or drink which has been rendered noxious or has become unfit for food or drink… Under Section 59 of the FSSA, a person commits an offence who, whether by himself or by any person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe.”
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies that in cases of food adulteration, the FSSA will override the IPC, thereby centralizing the legal framework for food safety under the specialized provisions of the FSSA. This decision not only streamlines the prosecution process in cases of food adulteration but also emphasizes the importance of specialized legislation in addressing specific public health concerns.
CASE DETAILS:
Case title – Ram Nath v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation
Appellant: AOR Garvesh Kabra, Advocates Abhishek Jaju, Pooja Kabra, Avanish Deshpande, AOR Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Advocates Vinod Pandey, Priyadarshi Kumar, Yadunandan Bansal, Ravinder Kumar Singh, Ali Rahim, Shalini Jain, and Mohsin Rahim
Respondents: Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, Sr. A.A.G. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, ASG Vikramjit Banerjee, AOR Dheeraj Nair, Advocates Kumar Kislay, Avni Sharma, Ridhima Sharma, Ajay Sabharwal, Ashita Chawla, AORs Niranjana Singh, Siddharth Singla, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advocates Abhishek Singh, Nachiketa Joshi, Navanjay Mahapatra, Sucheta Joshi, Himadri Haksar, T.S.Sabarish, AORs Gurmeet Singh Makker, Vishwa Pal Singh, Himanshu Shekhar, Advocates Parth Shekhar, Ambali Vedasen, Shubham Singh, Jamnesh Kumar, Tarun Bajaj, Rachna Ranjan, Mahesh Y Reddy, Sameer Mehndiratta, Rajat Sinha Roy, Darshan Chandrakant Siddarkar, Monica Haseja, Md Sontu Mia, and Chandra Sekar.