Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

472 of 2012, 479 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1379 of 2011 – The offences, subject matter of these appeals are quashed and set aside – Authorities at liberty to act in accordance with the FSSA for offences punishable u/s.59 of the FSSA – Criminal Appeal Nos. 476478 of 2012, dismissed. [Paras 21, 22] Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – ss.59, 48 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.272, 273 – Offence u/s.59 of the FSSA made out even in absence of intention as provided in s.272, IPC – Knowledge an essential ingredient in subsec.1 of s.48, and thus, a part of s.59, FSSA: Held: When the offences u/ss.272 and 273, IPC are made out, even the offence u/s.59 of the FSSA will be attracted – In fact, offence u/s.59 of the FSSA is more stringent – s.273 of the IPC applies when a person sells or, offers or exposes for sale any article of food or drink which has been rendered noxious or has become unfit for food or drink – s.273 incorporates requirements of knowledge or reasonable belief that the food or drink sold or offered for sale is noxious – s.59 of the FSSA does not require the presence of intention as contemplated by s.272, IPC – Under s.59 of the FSSA, a person commits an offence who, whether by himself or by any person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe – So, the offence u/s.59 of the FSSA is made out even if there is an absence of intention as provided in s.272, IPC – However, knowledge is an essential ingredient in sub-sec.1 of s.48, and therefore, it will be a part of s.59 of the FSSA. [Para 18]

Interpretation of Statutes – Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – s.89 – Overriding effect of this Act over all other food related laws – Main Section gives overriding effect to the provisions of the FSSA over any other law – Section unambiguous, aid of the title of the Section or its marginal note not to be taken to interpret the same: Held: The title of the section indeed indicates that the intention is to give an overriding effect to the FSSA over all ‘food-related laws’ – However, 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 notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force – So, the Section indicates that an overriding effect is given to the provisions of the FSSA over any other law – 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. [Para 20]

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Chapter IX – ss.4958 – Offences and Penalties – Chapter X – Adjudication and Food Safety Appellate Tribunal – Discussed – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – s.3 clause (zz), (a), (zx) – “unsafe food”; “adulterant”; “sub-standard”: Held: The concept of unsafe food is more comprehensive than the concept of adulterated food – Unsafe food means an article of food whose nature, substance or quality is so affected as to render it injurious to health – If any adulterant is added to an article of food, which renders the article of food injurious to health, the food article becomes unsafe food – Further, substandard food cannot be unsafe food. [Paras 9-11]

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Objects and reasons – Discussed.