2018 (9) TMI 1803 - SC - Indian Laws

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

The State Of Maharashtra Versus Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan & Ors.

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) ... Jurisdiction - power of Food Safety Officers to lodge complaints for offences punishable under the IPC - sale of Gutka/Pan Masala for offences punishable under Sections 26 and 30 of the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 - Held that:- There is no dispute that Section 55 of the FSS Act provides for penalty to be imposed for non compliance of the requirements of the Act, Rules or Regulations or orders issued thereunder by the Food Safety Officer. But, it cannot be agreed with the conclusion of the High Court that non compliance of the provisions of the Act, Rules or Regulations or orders cannot be subject matter of a prosecution under IPC unless expressly or impliedly barred. The High Court is clearly wrong in holding that action can be initiated against defaulters only under Section 55 of FSS Act or proceedings under Section 68 for adjudication have to be taken - There is no bar to a trial or conviction of an offender under two different enactments, but the bar is only to the punishment of the offender twice for the offence. Where an act or an omission constitutes an offence under two enactments, the offender may be prosecuted and punished under either or both enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence - thus, a perusal of the provisions of the FSS Act would make it clear that there is no bar for prosecution under the IPC merely because the provisions in the FSS Act prescribe penalties. Whether the acts complained amounted to any offence punishable under the provisions of the IPC? - Held that:- The points that were not argued before the High Court were raised by both sides. We suggested to the parties that the matters have to be considered afresh by the High Court by permitting both sides to raise all contentions which were canvassed before us. There was no serious objection by both sides to the remand of the matters back to the High Court. The only request made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents is that no coercive action should be taken against the Respondents during the pendency of Criminal Writ Petitions and the Criminal Applications before the High Court - matter remanded to the High Court to consider this point. Petition disposed off. 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.