Food safety law overrides IPC adulteration provisions where the special statute covers the same conduct and provides the governing regime.

The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 creates a comprehensive regime for unsafe food, adulteration, offences, penalties, special courts, limitation and procedure, and Section 59 covers conduct amounting to adulteration and sale of noxious food. Section 89 gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws, so where the same conduct falls within the special statute, prosecutions under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code are displaced. The governing principle is that a special food-safety law supersedes the general penal provisions to the extent of overlap, while proceedings may continue under the Act where permissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the coming into force of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, prosecution for food adulteration and sale of noxious food can still be launched under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code, or whether the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 occupies the field and overrides those provisions.

Analysis: The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is a comprehensive enactment covering unsafe food, adulteration, penalties, offences, special courts, limitation, and procedure. The definitions of "unsafe food" and "adulterant", together with the offence under Section 59, show that conduct amounting to adulteration of food and sale of noxious food is squarely covered by the special statute. Section 89 gives the Act overriding effect over any other law to the extent of inconsistency in matters covered by the Act. Where the ingredients of Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code are made out, the corresponding offence under Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act is also attracted, and the special enactment provides the governing regime.

Conclusion: Section 89 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 overrides Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code in matters covered by the special food-safety regime, and prosecution under the Indian Penal Code for the same food-related conduct is not maintainable where the Food Safety and Standards Act applies.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside, the prosecutions under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code were quashed, and the authorities were left free to proceed under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 where permissible.

Ratio Decidendi: When a special food-safety statute creates a comprehensive regime and contains an overriding clause, it supersedes inconsistent general penal provisions to the extent the conduct is covered by the special statute.

---