https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465615 Prosecution for storing a huge quantity of prohibited food articles was challenged on the ground that only the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 applied and that procedural requirements under the special enactment were not strictly followed. Relying on SC authority and s. 26 of the General Clauses Act, the HC held that, absent an express statutory bar, registration and prosecution under IPC can proceed even if the special enactment is attracted; hence the crime was validly registered and the challenge failed. The HC further held that IPC ss. 273 and 328 could be invoked because possession/exposure for sale of noxious food and dealing in substances likely to cause hurt need not be tied to a named consumer or specific incident at this stage; both proceedings were dismissed. en-us Tue, 16 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Jan 2026 08:03:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465615 Prosecution for storing a huge quantity of prohibited food articles was challenged on the ground that only the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 applied and that procedural requirements under the special enactment were not strictly followed. Relying on SC authority and s. 26 of the General Clauses Act, the HC held that, absent an express statutory bar, registration and prosecution under IPC can proceed even if the special enactment is attracted; hence the crime was validly registered and the challenge failed. The HC further held that IPC ss. 273 and 328 could be invoked because possession/exposure for sale of noxious food and dealing in substances likely to cause hurt need not be tied to a named consumer or specific incident at this stage; both proceedings were dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465615