https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171318 Implied repeal is not presumed; it arises only where two enactments are so irreconcilably inconsistent that they cannot operate together. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Fruit Products Order, 1955 were described as serving different but overlapping regulatory purposes, with one protecting public health against adulterated food and the other regulating fruit products under the Essential Commodities framework. Because compliance with one did not require breach of the other, the two regimes were treated as supplementary and cumulative. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was noted as permitting the same act to attract more than one offence, subject to the bar on double punishment. en-us Mon, 01 Feb 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171318 Implied repeal is not presumed; it arises only where two enactments are so irreconcilably inconsistent that they cannot operate together. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Fruit Products Order, 1955 were described as serving different but overlapping regulatory purposes, with one protecting public health against adulterated food and the other regulating fruit products under the Essential Commodities framework. Because compliance with one did not require breach of the other, the two regimes were treated as supplementary and cumulative. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was noted as permitting the same act to attract more than one offence, subject to the bar on double punishment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 Feb 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171318