Case Details Manik Hiru Jhangiani vs State of M.P

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

14 December 2023

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 3864 of 2023

Result

Allowed

Bench

Abhay S. Oka, Sanjay Karol

Citation

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 551 : 2023 INSC 1078

Issue for consideration

The question arose when the penal action can be taken under both the statutes-Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which statute would prevail. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) – ss. 52, 89 – Overriding effect of this Act over all other food related laws: Held: Effect of s. 89 is that if there is an inconsistency between the provisions of the PFA and the FSSA, s. 89 would operate, and provisions of the FSSA would prevail over the provisions of the PFA to the extent to which the same are inconsistent – Consequences of misbranding has been provided under both the enactments, and there is inconsistency in the enactments as regards the penal consequences of misbranding – Thus, in a case where after coming into force of s. 52 of the FSSA, if an act of misbranding is committed by anyone, which is an offence punishable u/s.

Headnote

16 of the PFA and which attracts penalty u/s. 52 of the FSSA, s. 52 of the FSSA would override the provisions of PFA – In view thereof, the violator who indulges in misbranding cannot be punished under the PFA and he would be liable to pay penalty under the FSSA in accordance with s. 52 thereof – On facts, on the day on which the alleged offence of misbranding was committed, the offender-appellant could have been sentenced to imprisonment u/s. 16 of the PFA and under the FSSA, he could have been directed to pay the penalty up to Rupees 3 lakhs – Punishment under PFA and the penalty under the FSSA cannot be imposed on the violator for the same misbranding because it would amount to double jeopardy, prohibited u/Art. 20(2) of the Constitution – Thus, when the penal action can be taken under both statutes, FSSA would prevail – High Court erred in holding that there is no inconsistency between the penal provisions relating to misbranding under the PFA and the FSSA – Hence, the High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings of the prosecution of the appellant u/s. 16 of the PFA – Impugned judgment and order set aside – Proceedings of the criminal case pending before the Magistrate quashed – Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA). [Paras 17, 18, 21]

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe & Anr. [1983] 1 SCR 905:(1983) 1 SCC 177; Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2018) 17 SCC 448 – referred to. Hindustan Unilever Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2020] 9 SCR 455:(2020) 10 SCC 751 – distinguished.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J. 1. Leave granted. FACTUAL ASPECTS 2. Various provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, ‘the FSSA’) were brought into force on different dates. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, ‘the PFA’) was repealed with effect from 5th August 2011, as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 97 of the FSSA. 3. The appellant was, at the relevant time, a Director of M/s. Bharti Retail Limited, (for short, ‘Bharti’), a company that is engaged in the business of operating retail stores under the n

View Subscription Plans →