Parallel prosecution under the Food Safety law and Penal Code is not barred absent express or implied exclusion.

The penalty under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 did not bar prosecution under the Indian Penal Code where the same facts disclosed offences under both enactments. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 permits prosecution and punishment under either or both laws, subject only to the bar on double punishment for the same offence. A special statute's penalty provision does not exclude recourse to the Penal Code unless prosecution is expressly or impliedly barred. The objection that only Section 55 of the Food Safety and Standards Act could be invoked was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether prosecution under the Indian Penal Code was barred because the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 prescribed a penalty for non-compliance with the prohibitory order issued under that Act.

Analysis: The penalty under Section 55 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 does not exclude prosecution under the Indian Penal Code where the same facts disclose offences under both enactments. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 permits prosecution and punishment under either or both enactments, subject only to the bar against double punishment for the same offence. A special statute providing a penalty does not, by itself, prevent recourse to the Penal Code unless prosecution is expressly or impliedly barred. On that basis, the view that only Section 55 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 could be invoked was held to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The objection that prosecution under the Indian Penal Code was barred was rejected, and the first issue was answered in favour of the Appellant.

---