2018 (9) TMI 1803 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Allows Dual Prosecution Under Food Safety Act and IPC; Remands Case for Reconsideration.

The Supreme Court overturned the Bombay High Court's decision to quash FIRs against the Respondents under the Food Safety Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) ... Prosecution under multiple enactments - Doctrine of double jeopardy - Special statute does not bar criminal prosecution - Section 188 IPC - disobedience causing or tending to cause danger to human life, health or safety - Remand for fresh consideration of factual allegationsProsecution under multiple enactments - Special statute does not bar criminal prosecution - Section 188 IPC - disobedience causing or tending to cause danger to human life, health or safety - Doctrine of double jeopardy - Whether Food Safety Officers could initiate complaints and prosecution under the IPC for alleged violations of the prohibition notification and whether the remedy under the FSS Act (Section 55) was exclusive. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the High Court erred in concluding that non compliance with orders under the FSS Act could only be dealt with under Section 55 of that Act and not under the IPC. An act or omission may constitute offences under both the IPC and a special enactment and prosecution under two enactments is permissible subject only to the bar against double punishment. Section 188 IPC is not confined to breach of public order; it also applies where the disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety. The Court relied on the principle in Section 26 of the General Clauses Act and prior decisions permitting prosecution under different statutes where ingredients are satisfied, and therefore set aside the High Court's finding that the prohibitory order could not be the subject matter of IPC proceedings. [Paras 6, 7, 8]Finding of the High Court that only Section 55 of the FSS Act could be invoked was set aside; Food Safety Officers may lodge complaints/prosecute under the IPC where ingredients are satisfied, subject to the rule against double punishment.Remand for fresh consideration of factual allegations - No coercive action during pendency - Whether offences under Sections 188, 272, 273 and 328 IPC were made out on the facts of the FIRs. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that additional contentions were raised before it which were not argued before the High Court and, in the interest of allowing a full adjudication, directed that the question whether the FIRs disclose offences under Sections 188, 272, 273 and 328 IPC be considered afresh by the High Court. The matter was remitted so that both sides may canvass all contentions before the High Court. Pending that reconsideration, the Court restrained coercive action against the respondents. [Paras 9, 10]Matter remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration of whether the offences under Sections 188, 272, 273 and 328 IPC are made out; no coercive action to be taken against the respondents until disposal.Final Conclusion: The appeals are allowed in part: the High Court's conclusion that only the penalty under the FSS Act could be invoked was set aside; whether IPC offences are made out is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration, with a direction that no coercive steps be taken against the respondents pending that adjudication. Issues:1. Quashing of FIRs under FSS Act and IPC by High Court of Bombay.2. Interpretation of Section 55 of the FSS Act and Section 188 of the IPC.3. Permissibility of prosecution under two different enactments.4. Consideration of offences under Section 188, 272, 273, and 328 of the IPC against the Respondents.Analysis:1. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of quashing FIRs under the Food Safety Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the High Court of Bombay. The High Court had quashed criminal proceedings against the Respondents, stating that Food Safety Officers could proceed under the FSS Act. However, the State of Maharashtra appealed, leading to the Supreme Court's examination of the matter.2. The Supreme Court analyzed the interpretation of Section 55 of the FSS Act and Section 188 of the IPC. The High Court held that non-compliance with a notification under the FSS Act could only be penalized under Section 55 and not under the IPC. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that non-compliance with provisions of the FSS Act, Rules, or orders could be subject to prosecution under the IPC unless expressly or impliedly barred. The Court highlighted that Section 188 of the IPC covers acts endangering human life, health, or safety, not just breaches of law and order.3. The Court discussed the permissibility of prosecution under two different enactments, citing relevant case laws. It emphasized that an act or omission could constitute an offence under multiple laws, allowing prosecution under either or both enactments without double punishment. The Court referred to the General Clauses Act, 1897, and previous judgments to support the permissibility of prosecution under different Acts based on the same facts.4. Finally, the Supreme Court considered the offences under Section 188, 272, 273, and 328 of the IPC against the Respondents. Both parties raised new points not argued before the High Court, leading the Court to remand the matters back for fresh consideration. The Court directed the High Court to reevaluate the Criminal Writ Petitions and Criminal Applications regarding the mentioned IPC sections, instructing no coercive action against the Respondents during the proceedings. The appeals were disposed of with these observations.