Summary
The Supreme Court quashed prosecution for misbranding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act where the alleged act occurred after the corresponding penalty provision of the Food Safety and Standards Act had commenced. Section 89 gave the newer Act priority over the inconsistent imprisonment provision, while leaving lawful action under Section 52 open.
Issues
- Which penalty regime governed misbranding when the relevant provisions of both food laws were in force.
- Whether the repeal-saving and sunset provisions justified prosecution under the older law despite the inconsistency.
Provisions considered
- Sections 52 and 89, Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006The monetary penalty for misbranding conflicted with the older Act’s imprisonment regime. Section 89 gave the FSSA provision overriding effect for conduct attracting both provisions after Section 52 commenced. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21)
- Section 97(1) and (4), Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006The Court recognised preservation of earlier liabilities and the three-year cognizance limit, but distinguished an offence predating the FSSA from this case of overlapping operative penalty provisions. (¶¶ 3, 15, 16, 20)
- Sections 2(ix)(k) and 16(1)(a), Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954The alleged deficient labelling attracted the old misbranding provision, but its imprisonment consequences could not prevail over the operative FSSA penalty for the same conduct. (¶¶ 9, 11, 13, 17, 18, 21)
Held
- Where an act of misbranding committed after Section 52 commenced attracts both the old offence and the FSSA penalty, their conflicting consequences engage Section 89. The offender cannot be punished under the inconsistent PFA provision and is subject to the FSSA penalty in accordance with law. (¶¶ 14, 17, 18)
- Hindustan Unilever concerned an offence committed before the FSSA existed. Its application of the repeal-saving clause did not decide the conflict between concurrently operative penalty provisions presented here. (¶ 20)
- The High Court erred in finding no inconsistency. Quashing the PFA prosecution did not prevent the authorities from lawfully invoking Section 52 of the FSSA. (¶¶ 21, 22)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court judgment was set aside and Criminal Case No.15830 of 2011 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Indore, was quashed. Action under Section 52 of the FSSA remained open in accordance with law.