The Honorable Supreme Court of India recently had the occasion to consider the interplay between the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (
FSSA) and certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (
IPC) in the matter of
Ram Nath vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors [(2024) 3 SCC 502].
Before delving further, a brief overview of the provisions of the respective Acts would be necessary.
The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
The FSSA was enacted to consolidate the laws relating to food and to further establish the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (
FSSAI) for laying down science-based standards for articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, and other measures to ensure availability of safe food for human consumption.
The FSSA is an exhaustive legislation which deals with all aspects of food, including adulteration, unsafe food, etc., and categorises them as offences under the act with prescribed penalties.
Section 59 of the FSSA provides for punishment to any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale/stores/sells/distributes/imports any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe.
Indian Penal Code, 1860
The IPC also provides for punishment for offences committed with respect to adulteration of food or drink intended for sale, as well as for the sale of noxious food or drink.
Section 272 of IPC prescribes imprisonment up to a term of 6 months or with fine or both in case a person intending to sell an article of food or drink or knowing that the same is likely to be sold, adulterates such article of food or drink so as to make it noxious.
Further Section 273 of IPC provides for punishment to a person who sells, offers, or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious.
Issue before the Supreme Court
The primary question before the Supreme Court in the above case was whether prosecution under the relevant provisions of IPC with respect to offences relating to food can simultaneously continue with a prosecution under the provisions of the FSSA.
Facts of the Case
The State of Uttar Pradesh issued an order granting power to the authorities to initiate prosecutions under Section 272 & 273 of IPC as well as under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Accordingly, a FIR came to be registered at the instance of the food inspector against the Petitioner therein.
A petition filed by the Petitioner therein for quashing of the FIR was dismissed by the Honourable Allahabad High Court. The Petitioner had in fact relied upon an earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court wherein it was held that from 29.07.2010, i.e., when the FSSA came into force, the provisions thereof would have an overriding effect over other food related laws including Section 272 & 273 of IPC and the police would have no jurisdiction to investigate a case under the FSSA.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in rejecting the petition for quashing of the FIR, the Appellant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Hon’ble Supreme Court firstly noted the objects and reasons of the FSSA as under:
“..
That statement of objects and reasons of the FSSA mentions explicitly that the multiplicity of food laws creates confusion. The multiplicity of laws, standard setting and various implementing/enforcement agencies are detrimental to the growth of the nascent food processing industry. It is further provided that the FSSA provides a single window to guide and regulate persons engaged in manufacturing, marketing, processing, handling, transport, import and sale of goods..”
It thereafter went on to discuss in detail the various provisions of the FSSA including the definitions of Unsafe food [Section 3(zz)], Sub-standard [Section 3(zx)] and Adulterant [Section 3(a)].
It was noticed that the FSSA contains exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions for dealing with offences with respect to unsafe food. Furthermore, FSSA by virtue of Section 89 thereof provided that the FSSA shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being, meaning thereby that the provisions of the FSSA would have an overriding effect over any other law in so far as the law applies to the aspects of food in the field covered by FSSA.
It was further held that since Section 59 of the FSSA would override Section 272 and 273 of IPC by virtue of Section 89 of FSSA, there would be no question of simultaneous prosecution under both the statutes.
Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the FIR registered under Section 272 & 273 of IPC and granted liberty to the authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings under the FSSA.
Conclusion
The above judgment establishes the fact that FSSA being a more exhaustive legislation to deal with food related offences takes precedence over other laws covering aspects similar to those covered by FSSA. The Court further observed that an offence under Section 59 of the FSSA is more stringent than the one under Section 272 & 273 of IPC.
We can assist you with concerns related to FSSA and the associated legal nuances. You can submit a query below and get in touch with us.
Thank you for getting in touch! 
