Summary
Where conduct concerning unsafe food is covered by the Food Safety and Standards Act, Section 89 gives that Act overriding effect over IPC Sections 272 and 273. The State could not pursue simultaneous prosecutions under Section 59 FSSA and those IPC provisions for the same food-safety conduct; the authorities remained free to proceed under the FSSA in accordance with law.
Issues
- Whether IPC Sections 272 and 273 can be prosecuted alongside Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act for conduct in the field covered by that Act.
- Whether Section 89’s overriding clause is limited to other food-related laws because of its title, or also applies to inconsistent provisions of the IPC.
Provisions considered
- Sections 3(zz), 59 and 89, Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006Section 3(zz) defines unsafe food broadly. Section 59 penalises dealing with unsafe food, and Section 89 gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws in the field it covers. Where the conduct constitutes an offence under Section 59, that provision overrides IPC Sections 272 and 273. (¶¶ 8, 9, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21)
- Sections 272 and 273, Indian Penal Code, 1860Section 272 requires intentional adulteration of food or drink intended for sale so as to make it noxious; Section 273 requires sale or offer for sale of noxious or unfit food with knowledge or reasonable belief. For food-safety conduct covered by the FSSA, Section 89 prevents parallel prosecution under these provisions where Section 59 applies. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 20, 21)
Held
- Section 89’s main text gives the FSSA overriding effect over any inconsistent law in the field covered by the Act; its title referring to ‘food-related laws’ cannot narrow unambiguous statutory language. Unsafe food is comprehensively regulated by the FSSA, including under Section 59. (¶¶ 9, 14, 15, 18, 20)
- Sections 272 and 273 IPC have ingredients distinct from Section 59 FSSA: Section 272 requires intention to adulterate food for sale so as to make it noxious; Section 273 requires knowledge or reasonable belief in selling or offering noxious or unfit food. Section 59 addresses manufacture for sale, storage, sale, distribution or import of unsafe food and carries its own penalties and procedure. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19)
- When the alleged conduct falls within Section 59 FSSA, Section 89 overrides IPC Sections 272 and 273; simultaneous prosecution under both regimes is not permitted for that conduct. The General Clauses Act rule on prosecution under multiple enactments did not alter that result. (¶¶ 20, 21)
Result
Three appeals challenging IPC prosecutions were allowed; the challenged orders and the offences under Sections 272 and 273 IPC were set aside, with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings under the FSSA if not already commenced. The State’s appeals were dismissed. No order as to costs.