Ram Nath vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh

2024 INSC 138 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2012 RAM NATH                                             …APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.                …RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 479 OF 2012 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 476­478 OF 2012 CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP(Crl.) No. 1379 of 2011 J U D G M E N T ABHAY S. OKA, J. Leave   granted  in  Special  Leave  Petition  (Crl.)  No. 1. Signature Not Verified 1379 of 2011. Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2024.02.22 18:19:30 IST Reason: Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 1 of 24 2. 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’).  FACTUAL ASPECT Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2012 takes exception to 3. th the order dated 5   October 2010 passed by a Division Bench   of   Allahabad   High   Court.   The   appellant   filed   a petition   under   Section   482   of   the   Code   of   Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of the   prosecution   for   the   offences   punishable   under th Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. On 11  May 2010, the State of Uttar Pradesh issued an order granting power to the   authorities   to   initiate   prosecutions   under   Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC as well as under the Prevention of th Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, ‘PFA’). On 28 Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 2 of 24 August 2010, a First Information Report (for short, ‘FIR’) was lodged by a food inspector representing the Regional Food Controller, Agra, against the petitioner alleging the commission of offences under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. The allegation was that, though the appellant did not possess a licence to sell the commodity of mustard oil,   he   continued   to   carry   on   the   business   of   sale. Another   allegation   was   that   the   petitioner   had adulterated the mustard oil, edible oil and rice brine oil. The petitioner approached the High Court to quash the FIR   on   various   grounds.   The   appellant   relied   on th Allahabad   High   Court's   decision   dated   8   September 2010, in the case of  M/s.   Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) 1 By the Ltd. & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors .  impugned order, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. Incidentally, the decision in the 1 case of   is the subject matter of challenge Pepsico India by the State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 476­ 1 2010 SCC OnLine All 1708 Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 3 of 24 478 of 2012.  In this case, FIR was registered against the th respondent on 11  August 2010, alleging the commission of offences under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. The allegation   was   of   adulteration   in   the   cold   drinks manufactured by the respondent. The view taken in the 1   th case of   Pepsico India was that, from 29   July 2010, when the FSSA came into force, the provisions thereof would   have   an   overriding   effect   over   the   food­related laws, including Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. Further, it   was   held   that   the   police   have   no   authority   or jurisdiction to investigate a case under the FSSA.  4. Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2012 takes an exception th to the order dated 15  September 2010, wherein the High Court   declined   to   quash   an   offence   punishable   under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1379 of  2011, the  challenge is to the  order rd dated 3   August 2010 of the Allahabad High Court by which a petition under Section 482 of CrPC filed by the appellant for quashing the  FIR alleging commission of Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 4 of 24 offences   under   Section   272   and   273   of   the   IPC   was dismissed. In Short, the controversy is whether the view taken 5. 1 in the case of  Pepsico India , which is the subject matter of challenge in Criminal Appeal No. 476­478 of 2012, is correct. In the said decision, it was held that after coming th into force of the FSSA with effect from 29  July 2010, it would   have   an   overriding   effect   on   other   food­related laws, including the PFA. Therefore, the High Court held that   invocation   of   Sections   272   and   273   of   the   IPC concerning food adulteration pursuant to a Government order dated 11th May 2010 was bad in law.  SUBMISSIONS 6. Detailed submissions have been 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 2  and the Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India & Ors. 2  (2014) 13 SCC 314 Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 5 of 24 State   of   Maharashtra   &   Anr.   v.   Sayyed   Hassan 3  The submission is that there is Sayyed Subhan & Ors. 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 (for short, ‘the GC Act’). Learned counsel for the State also relied upon another decision of this Court in the case of  State 4 of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. and Ors.  He submitted that the area of operation of the IPC and a food­related law like the FSSA are entirely different and, therefore, the same are mutually exclusive. The learned counsel urged that Section 89 gives overriding effect to 3  (2019) 18 SCC 145 4  (2003) 7 SCC 389 Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 6 of 24 the   provisions   of   the   FSSA   over   all   other   food­related laws,   as   is   evident   from   the   title   of   the   Section.   He submitted that the IPC is not a food­related law by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore, wherever Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC are attracted even after coming into force of the FSSA, the offender can be prosecuted under the said IPC provisions.  7. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   accused invited our attention to the objects and reasons of the FSSA   and   its   preamble.   Their   submission   is   that   the FSSA   is   very   exhaustive   legislation   dealing   with   all aspects of food, including adulteration, unsafe food, etc. Their   submission   is   that   Section   89   will   have   an overriding   effect   over   the   provisions   of   the   IPC.   Our attention is also invited to Section 5 and Section 41 of the IPC. The submission is that in view of Section 5, any special law will remain unaffected by the provisions of the IPC. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in the case of   Jeewan Kumar Raut & Anr. v. Central Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 7 of 24 5 Bureau of Investigation.   The counsel for the accused also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of   State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aman Mittal and 6 Anr ,   in support of the proposition that the FSSA, being a special law, will exclude the applicability of the IPC for the   fields   which   are   covered   by   the   provisions   of   the special Act.  CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 8. Different provisions of the FSSA were brought into force on different dates by notifications issued from time th to time. The last of such notification is of 29  July 2010. th All the provisions of the FSSA were in force as on 29 July 2010 except Section 22. The offences subject matter th of these appeals were registered after 29  July 2010. We have carefully considered the submissions made across the   bar.   The   statement   of   objects   and   reasons   of   the FSSA mentions explicitly that the multiplicity of food laws creates   confusion.   The   multiplicity   of   laws,   standard 5  (2009) 7 SCC 526 6  (2019) 19 SCC 740 Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 8 of 24 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   the persons   engaged   in   manufacturing,   marketing, processing, handling, transport, import and sale of goods. The   preamble   of   the   FSSA   records   that   it   was   an enactment to consolidate the laws relating to food. It is a very comprehensive legislation on all the aspects of food.    9. Clause (zz) of Section 3 of the FSSA defines unsafe food, which reads thus: “( zz )   “unsafe   food”   means   an article   of   food   whose   nature, substance or quality is so affected as to render it injurious to health: — ( i ) by the article itself, or its package thereof, which is composed, whether wholly   or   in   part,   of   poisonous   or deleterious substances; or ( ii ) by the article consisting, wholly or in part, of any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed   or   diseased   animal substance or vegetable substance; or Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 9 of 24 ( iii )   by   virtue   of   its   unhygienic processing or   the presence in that article of any  harmful  substance; or ( ) by the substitution of any inferior iv or cheaper substance whether wholly or in part; or ( v )   by   addition   of   a   substance directly or as an ingredient which is not permitted; or ( vi ) by the abstraction, wholly or in part, of any of its constituents; or ( vii ) by the article being so coloured, flavoured   or   coated,   powdered   or polished, as to damage or conceal the article or to make it appear better or of greater value than it really is; or ( viii ) by the presence of any colouring matter   or   preservatives   other   than that specified in respect thereof; or ( )   by   the   article   having   been ix infected   or   infested   with   worms, weevils, or insects; or ( x )   by   virtue   of   its   being   prepared, packed   or   kept   under   insanitary conditions; or ( xi ) by virtue of its being mis­branded or   sub­standard   or   food   containing extraneous matter; or Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 10 of 24

Thus, 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.  The   word   sub­standard   has   been   defined   under 10. clause (zx) of Section 3, which reads thus:

Therefore, sub­standard food cannot be unsafe food.  11. Another important definition is of adulterant under clause (a) of Section 3, which reads thus:

Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 11 of 24 Coming back to the definition of unsafe food, sub­clause (v) of Clause (zz) of Section 3 provides that by adding a substance   directly   or   as   an   ingredient   which   is   not permitted   makes   an   article   of   food   unsafe   food.   The presence of any harmful substance in the article of food makes   it   unsafe   food.   Therefore,   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.  12. The offences and penalties are contained in Chapter IX. Sub­Section 1 of Section 48 lays down how any article of food can be rendered injurious to health. Sub­Section 1 of Section 48 reads thus:

Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 12 of 24

Thus, if a person knows that a particular article of food is being   offered   for   sale   or   distribution   for   human consumption   and   adds   any   adulterant   (article   or substance)   to   the   food,   he   renders   the   food   article injurious to health. In Chapter IX, Sections 49, 50, 51, 52,   53,   54,   55,   56,   57   and   58   deal   with   penalties. Sections 59 to 64 and 66 specifically deal with offences. Section   74   of   Chapter   X   empowers   the   Central Government   or   State   Government   to   establish   Special Courts for the trial of offences relating to grievous injury or death of the consumer for which the punishment of imprisonment is more than 3 years.  In sub­Section 3 of Section 34, it is provided that 13. the trial of any offence under the FSSA by the Special Court shall have precedence over the prosecution of any Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 13 of 24 other case against the accused in any other Court. In cases where offences are not triable by the Special Court, under Section 73 of the FSSA, there is a power vesting in the   Courts   of   Judicial   Magistrates   to   try   the   case summarily by following Sections 262 to 265 of the CrPC. Against any decision or order of the Special Court, an appeal is provided to the High Court under Section 76. The appeal lies before a bench consisting of at least two Judges. Another salutary provision is Section 77, which prohibits any Court from taking cognizance of the offence under the FSSA after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the commission of the crime. However, the Commissioner of Food Safety, for reasons recorded, can   extend   the   period   from   one   year   to   three   years. Section 79 of the FSSA overrides Section 29 of CrPC and provides that it shall be lawful for the Court of ordinary jurisdiction to pass any sentence authorised under the FSSA   except   a   sentence   of   imprisonment   for   a   term exceeding six years in excess of its powers conferred by Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 14 of 24 Section 29 of CrPC. Section 78 provides that at any time during the trial of any offence under the FSSA, when an offence has been alleged to have been committed by any person not being the importer, manufacturer, distributor or dealer, based on evidence adduced before it, the Court has   the   power   to   proceed   against   the   importer, manufacturer,   distributor   or   dealer.   This   provision explicitly gives an overriding effect over the provision of sub­Section 3 of Section 319 of CrPC. Another salutary provision is Section 80, which lists the defences that may or   may   not   be   allowed   in   the   prosecution   under   the FSSA. For example, it is provided that it is no defence that the accused had a mistaken but reasonable belief as to the facts that constituted the offence.  Therefore, as far as offences relating to food and 14. food   safety   are   concerned,   there   are   very   exhaustive provisions made in the FSSA dealing with all aspects of food and food security.  Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 15 of 24 15. In the facts of these cases, the offence under Section 59 of the FSSA is very relevant, which reads thus: “ 59. Punishment for unsafe food.— Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures   for   sale   or   stores   or sells   or   distributes   or   imports   any article   of   food   for   human consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable,— ( i )   where   such   failure   or contravention   does   not   result   in injury,   with   [imprisonment   for   a term  which  may  extend   to  three months and also with fine which 7 may extend to three lakh rupees]; ( ii )   where   such   failure   or contravention   results   in   a   non­ grievous   injury,   with   imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also with fine which may extend to three lakh rupees; ( iii )   where   such   failure   or contravention   results   in   a   grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and also with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees; 7 Subs. for “imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees” by Act 18 of 2023, S. 2 and Sch. (w.e.f. 8-11-2023). Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 16 of 24 ( iv )   where   such   failure   or contravention results in death, with imprisonment for a term which shall not   be   less   than   seven   years   but which may extend to imprisonment for life and also with fine which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees. ” Any person, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures or, stores or, sells or imports unsafe food for human consumption, becomes guilty of an offence of dealing with unsafe food. As can be noted, there are different punishments provided, starting from imprisonment   for   3   months   and   extending   to imprisonment   for   life   and   a  fine,   depending   upon   the extent and nature of injury caused by unsafe food. The fine is in the range of rupees three lakh to rupees ten lakh.  16. In these appeals, we are dealing only with Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. The same read thus:

Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 17 of 24

Section   272   is   an   offence   of   adulteration   of   any 17. article   of   food   or   drink.   The   definition   of   food   under Clause (a) of Section 3 of the FSSA also includes a liquid. If adulteration of an article of food is made which makes such articles noxious as food or drink, the person who adulterates   is   guilty   of   an   offence   punishable   under Section   272   of   the   IPC.   It   contemplates   the   accused adulterating food with the intention to sell adulterated Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 18 of 24 food.   Thus,   intention   is   an   ingredient   of   the   offence. When   by   adulterating   an   article   of   food   or   liquid,   it becomes   harmful   or   poisonous,   it   can   be   said   that   it becomes noxious. If, by adulteration, an article of food becomes   noxious,   it   becomes   unsafe   food   within   the meaning of Section 3 (zz) of FSSA.  18. Section 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. Section 273 incorporates requirements of knowledge or reasonable belief that the food or drink sold or offered for sale is noxious. Section 59 of the FSSA does not require the presence of intention as contemplated by Section 272 of the IPC. Under Section 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   under Section 59 of the FSSA is made out even if there is an Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 19 of 24 absence of intention as provided in Section 272 of the IPC.   However,   knowledge   is   an   essential   ingredient   in sub­Section 1 of Section 48, and therefore, it will be a part   of   Section   59   of   the   FSSA.   The   maximum punishment for the offence under Section 272 of the IPC is   imprisonment   for   a   term   which   may   extend   to   six months or with a fine. The substantive sentence for the offence   punishable   under   Section   273   is   the   same, whereas, under Section 59, the punishment is of simple imprisonment   extending   from   three   months   to   a   life sentence with a fine of rupees three lakh up to 10 lakhs. 19. Moreover, a limitation of one year is provided for the offence under Section 59, which is extendable up to three years as provided in Section 77 of the FSSA. By virtue of Section 468 of CrPC, the limitation for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 272 and 273 is one year. There is a power to extend time under Section 473 of CrPC. The power is not limited to three years.   Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 20 of 24 CONCLUSION 20. Thus,   there   are   very   exhaustive   substantive   and procedural   provisions   in   the   FSSA   for   dealing   with offences concerning unsafe food. In this context, we must consider the effect of Section 89 of the FSSA. Section 89 reads thus:

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 ‘food­related 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 Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 21 of 24 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.   In   this   case,   we   are   concerned   only   with Sections   272   and   273   of   the   IPC.   When   the   offences under Section 272 and 273 of the IPC are made out, even the   offence   under   Section   59   of   the   FSSA   will   be attracted. In fact, the offence under Section 59 of the FSSA is more stringent. The decision of this Court in the case of   21. Swami 2 Achyutanand Tirth   does not deal with this contingency 3 at all. In the case of     , the the State of Maharashtra question of the effect of Section 97 of the FSSA did not Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 22 of 24 arise for consideration of this Court. The Court dealt with simultaneous   prosecutions   and   concluded   that   there could be simultaneous prosecutions, but conviction and sentence can be only in one. This proposition is based on what is incorporated in section 26 of the GC Act. We have no manner of doubt that by virtue of Section 89 of the FSSA, Section 59 will override the provisions of Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. Therefore, there will not be any question   of   simultaneous   prosecution   under   both   the statutes.  22. Accordingly,   Criminal   Appeal   No.   472   of   2012, Criminal   Appeal   No.479   of   2012   and   Criminal   Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1379 of 2011 succeed, and we set   aside   the   impugned   orders.   The   offences,   subject matter of these appeals, are hereby quashed and set aside with   liberty   to   the   authorities   to   initiate   appropriate proceedings   in   accordance   with   the   law   if   not   already initiated. Therefore, the concerned authorities are free to act in accordance with the FSSA for offences punishable Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 23 of 24 under Section 59 of the FSSA. Criminal Appeal Nos. 476­ 478 of 2012 are dismissed.  No orders as to costs. 23. ……………………..J. (Abhay S. Oka) ……………………..J. (Sanjay Karol) New Delhi; February 21, 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 20112 Page 24 of 24