Ram Nath v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2024)

1. Case Title & Citation

• Ram Nath The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2024)
• [2024] 2 S.C.R.743 : 2024 INSC 138

2. Court Name & Bench

• Supreme Court of India
• Justice Abhay S.Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
• Division Bench

3. Date of Judgement

• 21^st February, 2024

4. Parties Involved

Appellant : Ram Nath

Respondent(s) : The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

5. Facts of the Case

• On 11-05-2010, the State Government of Uttar Pradesh issued an Order empowering the Authorities to launch proceedings under sections 272 and 273 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954.
• On 28-08-2010, a First Information Report was lodged by a Food Inspector representing Regional Food Controller against the appellant  alleging that the appellant continued to carry on the business of selling commodity of mustard oil without a valid license. Another allegation was that the appellant adulterated the mustard oil , edible oil and rice bran oil.
• The appellant filed petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( CrPC), 1973, seeking to quash prosecution for offences punishable under sections 272 and 273 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 , however the same was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court.
• He filed a Special Leave Petition against the Order of the High Court .

6. Issues Raised

• Whether the Appeals are maintainable before the Supreme Court of India?
• Whether the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 will take precedence over Indian Penal Code,1860 in this instant case?
• Whether there would be simultaneous prosecutions under IPC,1860 and FSSA,2006?
• Whether there would be punishments both under provisions of the FSSA,2006 and IPC,1860?

7. Arguments of the Parties

Appellant

The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant brought to the attention of the Hon’ble Court the objects and reasons of the Food Safety and Standards Act and its Preamble.

“ An Act to consolidate the laws relating to food and to establish the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India for laying down science – based  standards for articles of food and to regulate their manufacture , storage, distribution, sale and import, to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption and for matters connected therewith or incidental to thereto.” 

Object of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 : The Food and Safety Act, 2006 has made an attempt for laying down science based standards for all categories of articles of food. An attempt is also  made to ensure availability of safe food for consumption. The object seems to be to have a single reference point for all matters relating to food safety and standards , regulations and enforcement. One of the main objects appears to be to have a comprehensive law intended to ensure better consumer safety through food safety management systems.

 For ensuring better consumer safety , the aim appears to be of setting higher standards of quality based on science as held in International Spirits and Wines Association of India v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2013 Bom.178 at p.183

The learned counsel submission was that section 89 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006  has overriding effect over the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. He also drew the Hon’ble Court attention to section 5 and section 41 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The submission is that in view of section 5, any law will remain unaffected by the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Jeewan Kumar Raut & Anr.v. Central Bureau of Investigation[(2009) 7 SCC 526]

 The counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of  State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aman Mittal and Anr[( 2019) 19 SCC 740], in support of the proposition that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 being a special law, will exclude the applicability of the Indian Penal Code for the fields which are covered by the provisions of the special Act.

Respondents

Detailed submissions were made on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 476- 478 of 2012. On behalf of the State, reliance was placed on the decisions of this court in the cases of Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India & Ors. [(2014)13SCC 314] and  the State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Sayyed Hassan Subhan & Ors.[ (2019)18SCC145]. The submission was that there is no bar to the trial of an offender under two different enactments, but the bar is only to the punishment of the offender twice for the same offence.

 The learned counsel submitted that where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two enactments, the offender may be prosecuted under either one of the two enactments or both enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. Reliance was placed upon section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

 Learned counsel for the State also relied upon another decision of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. and Ors[(2003)7SCC389]. He submitted that the area of operation of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 and a food-related law like the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006  are entirely different and, therefore, the same are mutually exclusive. The learned counsel urged that section 89 gives overriding effect to the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 over all other food-related laws, as is evident from the title of the section. He submitted that the Indian Penal Code, 1860  is not a food-related law by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore, wherever sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are attracted even after coming into force of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the offender can be prosecuted under the said Indian Penal Code provisions.

8. Judgement / Final Decision

Leave granted in Special Leave Petition ( Cri.) No. 1379 of 2011

The issue involved in these appeals is about the interplay between the provisions of chapter IX of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 ( for short ,’ the FSSA) and sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short,‘ the IPC’).

The Court took note of the fact that all provisions except section 22 of FSSA were in force as on 29-07-2010, while the appeals were registered after that date. The Court highlighted that the statement of objects  and reasons of FSSA explicitly mention that multiplicity of food laws creates confusion, being detrimental to nascent food processing industry, and that FSSA was enacted to consolidate laws relating to food, being a comprehensive legislation on all aspects of food.

The court perused section 3(zz) of FSSA defining unsafe food and said that it is more comprehensive than the concept of adulterated food. Unsafe food means an article an article of food whose nature, substance or quality is so affected as to render it injurious to health. The Court further hinted towards sections 3(zx) and 3 (a), 48(1) to conclude that “if a person knows that a particular article of food is being offered for sale or distribution for human consumption and adds any adulterant to the food, he renders the food article injurious to health.”

The Court clarified that the provisions keep no scope for defence of accused being mistaken but having reasonable belief regarding facts which constituted the offence. The Court pointed towards section 59 of FSSA regarding punishments for unsafe food , ranging from 3 month imprisonment to imprisonment for life with fine of 3 lakh to 10 lakh. It further perused section 272 for adulteration of food or drink  intended for sale , highlighting the elements of intention , and section 273 for sale of noxious food or drink , hinting towards ‘ knowledge or reasonable belief ‘. The Court expressed that “ section 59 of the FSSA does not require the presence of intention as contemplated by section 272 of the IPC”.

The Court concluded that there were “ exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions in the FSSA for dealing with offense concerning unsafe food.” It further referred to section 89 of FSSA regarding overriding effect of the Act over other food related laws and commented that “ in the main section , there is no such restriction confined to food related laws, and it is provided that provisions of the FSSA shall have effect not withstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.”

The court explained that” the settled law is that if the main section is unambiguous  the aid of the title of the section or its marginal note cannot be taken to interpret the same. Only if it is ambiguous, the title of the section or the marginal note can be looked into to understand the intention of the legislature. Therefore, the main section 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.”

The Court found that in the instant case when offence under sections 272 and 273 was made out, offence under section 59 of FSSA, 2006 would be attracted. It expressed that” we have no manner of doubt that by virtue of section 89 of the FSSA,2006 , section 59 of  FSSA, 2006 will override the provisions of sections 272 and 273 of the IPC, 1860. Therefore, there will not be any question of simultaneous prosecution under both the statutes.”

The court therefore allowed the two appeals and set aside the impugned order , quashed and set aside the offense and kept the authorities at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings as per law, FSSA, 2006  in the instant matter. 

9. Legal Reasoning/Ratio Decidendi

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that section 89 of the FSSA, 2006 explicitly overrides all other inconsistent laws. Therefore, offences related to food safety must be prosecuted exclusively under the FSSA, 2006.

Obiter dicta

The Court remarked on the exhaustive nature of the FSSA and its provisions, which ensure stricter penalties and more comprehensive regulation compared to  IPC, 1860.

10. Conclusion/Observations

• This judgement has a far – reaching implications for the enforcement of food safety laws in India. By asserting the primacy of the FSSA over IPC provisions, the Supreme Court ensures a unified and robust legal framework for addressing food adulteration and food safety violations. Authorities will now adhere exclusively to FSSA for prosecutions in this domain, eliminating legal ambiguities and potential conflicts arising from concurrent applications of multiple statutes.
• Future cases will undoubtedly have reference to this precedent to resolve similar   conflicts  between general and specialized laws. Additionally, this decision empowers the FSSA to function effectively without encumbrances from other legislative provisions, thereby enhancing the regulatory environment for Food Safety and Standards in India.

My Critical Reflection:

The Precedent set in this case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is certainly a  milestone for future cases relating to food – related offences, but not an innovation. This Precedent thwarted the disaster of Double Jeopardy which would otherwise violate Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India but it failed to adopt a structured proportionality tests used in jurisdictions in UK or Germany to curb the arbitrariness of the administrative authorities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court should have made the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006  a mandate to deal with food – related offences for future cases rather than setting it only as reference.

Sources

Statutes

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. The General Clauses Act, 1867
3. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
4. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
5. The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006

Websites

1. https: //api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt
2. https://www.scconline.com
3. https://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt
4. https://lawfoyer.in
5. https://www.casemine.com
6. https://legalvidhya.com
7. https://www.caseciter.com
8. https://www.scribd.com