Brief Facts
- A Food Inspector appointed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA) visited ‘Easy day’ outlet on 29.11.2010 and purchased certain biscuit packets. Subsequently, on the next day, the acquired samples were dispatched to the State Food Laboratory in Bhopal for analysis. Further, the Public Analyst’s Report was received on 04.01.2011.
- Subsequently, a Notification dated 04.08.2011 was issued under subsection (1) of Section 97 of the FSSA, declaring 05.08.2011, as the date on which the PFA would be repealed. Notably, Section 97(1) of FSSA stipulates that despite the repeal of the PFA, any penalties, forfeitures, or punishments incurred for offences committed under the PFA would not be affected. Additionally, Section 97(4) of FSSA outlines a sunset period of three years from 05.08.2011, for taking cognizance of offences under the PFA.
- Thereafter, on 11.08.2011, a Sanction was granted to the Food Inspector to prosecute the Directors of Bharti under the PFA. The Food Inspector filed a Charge Sheet on 12.08.2011, and on the same day, the Ld. Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, issuing a bailable warrant against the Appellant.
- The Appellant subsequently filed a Petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order of cognizance. However, the High Court dismissed the
- Before the Apex Court the Appellant contended that at the time when the alleged act of misbranding was done, the provisions of both PFA and FSSA (section 52) were in force and since the FSSA contains the overriding clause the proceedings could not have been initiated under PFA.
Issues
Whether the provisions Food Safety and Standards Act will prevail over Prevention of Food Adulteration Act?
Held
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and the proceedings under the PFA were quashed. Court concluded that at the time when the alleged offence was committed, the provisions of both the PFA and FSSA were in force and considering the overriding effect of FSSA the proceedings under PFA cannot be sustained.
- The effect of Section 89 is that if there is an inconsistency between the provisions of the PFA and the FSSA, the provisions of the FSSA will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the PFA. When it comes to the consequences of misbranding, the same has been provided under both the enactments, and there is inconsistency in the enactments as regards the penal consequences of misbranding. As pointed out earlier, one provides for imposing only a penalty in terms of payment of money, and the other provides imprisonment for not less than six months. In view of the inconsistency, Section 89 of the FSSA will operate, and provisions of the FSSA will prevail over the provisions of the PFA to the extent to which the same are inconsistent.
Relevant Page No.
18