Parallel prosecution under food safety law and IPC survives absent an express bar, with prohibited food allegations supporting criminal offences.
In the absence of an express statutory bar, alleged conduct covered by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 may still be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code where the same transaction also discloses IPC offences. Allegations of storage and sale of prohibited food articles were treated as capable of attracting sections 272, 273 and 328 IPC because the nature and intended sale of the substances supported offences relating to adulteration, noxious food and causing hurt. Procedural objections under the special enactment were held to be matters for trial, and parallel complaint and police proceedings arising from the same incident could proceed together.
Issues: (i) Whether registration of the criminal case and continuation of prosecution under the Indian Penal Code was barred because the same conduct was also covered by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. (ii) Whether the allegations concerning storage and sale of prohibited food articles made out offences under sections 272, 273 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (iii) Whether the private complaint was vitiated for non-compliance with the procedural requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and whether the parallel complaint and police case could be dealt with together.
Issue (i): Whether registration of the criminal case and continuation of prosecution under the Indian Penal Code was barred because the same conduct was also covered by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Analysis: The governing principle applied was that the presence of a special enactment does not, by itself, create a bar against invoking the penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code when the alleged conduct also constitutes IPC offences. The Court relied on the position that, in the absence of an express statutory exclusion, parallel invocation of the special statute and the IPC is permissible. The existence of an order of prohibition and the statutory scheme under the special enactment did not displace the IPC remedies.
Conclusion: The contention that the criminal case could not have been registered under the Indian Penal Code was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the allegations concerning storage and sale of prohibited food articles made out offences under sections 272, 273 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Analysis: The Court treated the alleged possession of a large quantity of prohibited food articles intended for sale as sufficient to attract the provisions dealing with adulteration, sale of noxious food and administration or causing to be taken anything likely to cause hurt. The scientific material referred to in support of the prohibition, including the harmful and carcinogenic effects of the substances involved, was treated as relevant to the legal character of the articles and the seriousness of the alleged conduct. On that basis, the allegations were held to be capable of sustaining the invoked IPC offences.
Conclusion: The challenge to the applicability of sections 272, 273 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 failed.
Issue (iii): Whether the private complaint was vitiated for non-compliance with the procedural requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and whether the parallel complaint and police case could be dealt with together.
Analysis: The Court held that disputed procedural objections regarding compliance with the special enactment could be examined at trial and did not justify quashing at the threshold. Since both the police case and the private complaint arose from the same incident, the Court held that the trial court could apply the procedure for parallel proceedings and take steps contemplated by the criminal procedure law for such situations.
Conclusion: The procedural challenge to the complaint was not accepted, and the parallel matters were left to be tried together in accordance with law.
Final Conclusion: The proceedings disclosed no ground for quashing, and the prosecution was permitted to continue under both the special enactment and the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory bar, offences under a special food safety law do not preclude prosecution under the Indian Penal Code for the same transaction, and allegations of possession or sale of prohibited food articles may attract IPC provisions relating to adulteration, noxious food and causing hurt.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
