Implied repeal requires irreconcilable conflict; food adulteration law and fruit products regulation can operate together

Implied repeal is not presumed; it arises only where two enactments are so irreconcilably inconsistent that they cannot operate together. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Fruit Products Order, 1955 were described as serving different but overlapping regulatory purposes, with one protecting public health against adulterated food and the other regulating fruit products under the Essential Commodities framework. Because compliance with one did not require breach of the other, the two regimes were treated as supplementary and cumulative. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was noted as permitting the same act to attract more than one offence, subject to the bar on double punishment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was impliedly repealed, in relation to vinegar sold under a licence issued under the Fruit Products Order, 1955, so as to bar prosecution under the food adulteration law.

Analysis: The governing test for implied repeal is whether two enactments are so plainly inconsistent or repugnant that they cannot reasonably stand together. Repeal by implication is not favoured, and the later law prevails only where the conflict is irreconcilable or where both provisions cannot be given effect consistently. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Fruit Products Order, 1955 operate in different though overlapping fields: the former is directed to protection of public health by preventing sale of adulterated food, while the latter regulates production, supply and distribution of fruit products under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The fact that both enactments may apply to vinegar does not create a necessary conflict, because compliance with one does not compel breach of the other. The statutory scheme, the subsequent amendments to the food adulteration rules, and the absence of any destructive inconsistency show that the two regimes are supplementary and cumulative rather than mutually exclusive. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 also indicates that the same act may constitute offences under more than one enactment, subject to the bar against double punishment.

Conclusion: The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was not impliedly repealed by the Fruit Products Order, 1955, and prosecution under the food adulteration law was maintainable; the contention of implied repeal failed in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Implied repeal is not presumed, and a later special order will displace an earlier statute only where the two are irreconcilably inconsistent and cannot operate together; overlapping regulatory schemes may stand side by side when their objects and requirements are complementary.

---