Fssa Takes Center Stage, Renders Ipc Secondary In Prosecuting Unsafe Food Practices

CASE NAME:

Ram Nath vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

CASE DATE:

21st February, 2024

PARTIES:-

Appellant: Ram Nath

Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh

BENCH/JUDGE:

Justice Abhay S Oka

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:-

FSSA Section 59:- 

Defines offenses related to unsafe food, applicable to anyone involved in manufacturing, selling, or distributing unsafe food for human consumption.

IPC Section 272:- 

Addresses the offense of adulteration of any food or drink, involving the intentional addition of adulterants making the item noxious.

IPC Section 273:- 

Pertains to selling or offering for sale any food or drink rendered noxious, with the requirement of knowledge or reasonable belief.

FSSA Section 89:- 

Establishes the overriding effect of FSSA provisions over other laws in matters related to food.

SUBJECT:-

The case involves the State of Uttar Pradesh prosecuting under IPC for food safety offenses post-FSSA enforcement. The State argues no bar to dual enactments, urging IPC application. Appellant counters, emphasizing FSSA's comprehensive framework, overriding IPC, and stricter penalties. The court concurs, deeming FSSA prevails, quashing IPC charges. 

OVERVIEW:-

The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2012 seeks to quash a prosecution order for offenses under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. The case involves allegations of selling mustard oil without a license and adulterating edible oils. The appellant relies on the Pepsico India case, arguing that the FSSA has overriding authority since July 29, 2010. The High Court dismissed the petition, leading to a dispute over the correctness of the Pepsico India decision. The broader issue is whether the FSSA prevails over other food-related laws. 

ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT:-

1. Whether the court should quash the prosecution order under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC concerning the alleged sale of mustard oil without a license and adulteration of edible oils?
2. Whether the government order dated May 11, 2010, granting power to initiate prosecutions under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is legally valid?
3. Whether the Food Safety and Standards Act has an overriding effect on other food-related laws?
4. Whether the police have the authority to investigate cases under the FSSA? 

CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT:-

• The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the Pepsico India case, asserting that the Food Safety and Standards Act has an overriding effect on other food-related laws. They argue that after the FSSA came into force on July 29, 2010, its provisions prevail over the IPC and other statutes concerning food-related offenses.
• The appellant challenges the High Court's decision, emphasizing the inconsistency with the Pepsico India case, which held that invoking Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC for food adulteration after the FSSA's enforcement is legally unsound.
• Regarding the alleged offense of selling mustard oil without a license, the appellant contended that the FSSA should govern such matters, and the absence of a license might not be punishable under the IPC.
• The appellant argued that accusations of adulteration of mustard oil, edible oil and rice brine oil fall under the jurisdiction of the FSSA and prosecution under the IPC is not warranted. 

CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT:-

• The respondent asserted that there is no legal prohibition against trying an offender under two different enactments. They argued that the restriction lies in punishing the offender twice for the same offense, referencing Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
• The respondent maintains that the IPC and the Food Safety and Standards Act operate in entirely different spheres. They argued that the IPC and the FSSA are mutually exclusive and can coexist without conflicting with each other.
• Reference is made to Section 5 and Section 41 of the IPC, emphasizing that any special law, such as the FSSA, remains unaffected by the provisions of the IPC. This is supported by citing the decision in the case of Jeewan Kumar Raut & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation.
• Citing the decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aman Mittal and Anr., the respondent argues that the FSSA, being a special law, excludes the applicability of the IPC in fields covered by its provisions. 

ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:-

• The court observed that different provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act were brought into force on various dates through notifications, with the last notification issued on July 29, 2010. As of that date, all provisions of the FSSA were in effect except Section 22. The offenses in question were registered after July 29, 2010.
• The court considered the submissions across the bar and noted that the statement of objects and reasons of the FSSA explicitly mentioned the need to eliminate confusion caused by the multiplicity of food laws. The FSSA was designed to provide a single window to regulate various aspects of the food industry comprehensively.
• The court highlighted the comprehensive nature of the FSSA, consolidating laws related to food and addressing all aspects of food processing. It emphasized that the concept of unsafe food, as defined in the FSSA, is more extensive than that of adulterated food. Unsafe food, according to the FSSA, is any article of food whose nature, substance, or quality is affected to the extent that it becomes injurious to health.
•  The court further discussed that the presence of any harmful substance, including an unauthorized additive, in an article of food renders it unsafe. If an adulterant is added to an article of food, making it injurious to health, the food article is classified as unsafe.
• The court highlighted that the FSSA defines unsafe food as any article of food whose nature, substance, or quality is affected to the extent that it becomes injurious to health. This definition includes the addition of any adulterant to food, rendering it injurious to health.
• The court pointed out the detailed provisions in Chapter IX of the FSSA, covering penalties in Sections 49 to 58 and offenses in Sections 59 to 64 and 66. Section 74 empowers the establishment of Special Courts for offenses resulting in grievous injury or death, punishable by imprisonment exceeding three years. 

JUDGMENT:-

The court held that the FSSA provides exhaustive provisions for dealing with offenses related to unsafe food, giving it an overriding effect over any other law. While the title mentions “food-related laws”, the main section doesn't limit the overriding effect. Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code are subject to this override. The court clarified that Swami Achyutanand Tirth's decision didn't address the specific situation here, and the State of Maharashtra case didn't involve Section 97 of the FSSA. Emphasizing Section 89 of the FSSA, the court concluded that Section 59 of the FSSA will override Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC, precluding simultaneous prosecutions. Certain criminal appeals were allowed, quashing the offenses, with authorities free to initiate proceedings under the FSSA. Criminal Appeal Nos. 476-478 of 2012 were dismissed with no costs awarded. 

CONCLUSION:-

The court upheld the Food Safety and Standards Act's comprehensive provisions, affirming its overriding effect over other laws in matters related to unsafe food. The judgment clarified the applicability of Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code under the FSSA, emphasizing that Section 59 of the FSSA prevails. Simultaneous prosecutions under both statutes were deemed unnecessary. The court allowed specific criminal appeals, quashing related offenses, and dismissed others with no costs. This verdict affirms the FSSA's authority in regulating and prosecuting offenses concerning food safety, providing clarity on the legal landscape in such cases.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement