TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1477
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shi, Adv., Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv., Ms. Sucheta Joshi, Adv., Ms. Himadri Haksar, Adv., Mr. T.S .Sabarish, Adv., Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, , Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR, Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR, Mr. Parth Shekhar, Adv., Ms. Ambali Vedasen, Adv., Ms. Shubham Singh, Adv., Mr. Jamnesh Kumar, Adv., Mr. Tarun Bajaj, Adv., Ms. Rachna Ranjan, Adv., Mr. Dr. Mahesh Y Reddy, Adv., Mr. Sameer Mehndiratta, Adv., Mr. Rajat Sinha Roy, Adv., Mr. Darshan Chandrakant Siddarkar, Adv., Ms. Monica Haseja, Adv., Mr. Md Sontu Mia, Adv., Mr. N.Chandra Sekar, Adv. JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J. 1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1379 of 2011. 2. The issue involved in these appeals is about the interplay between the provisions of Chapter IX of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, 'the FSSA') and Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'). FACTUAL ASPECT 3. Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2012 takes exception to the order dated 5th October 2010 passed by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court. The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC') seeking quashing of the pros....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant for quashing the FIR alleging commission of offences under Section 272 and 273 of the IPC was dismissed. 5. In Short, the controversy is whether the view taken in the case of Pepsico India [2010 SCC OnLine All 1708], which is the subject matter of challenge in Criminal Appeal No. 476­478 of 2012, is correct. In the said decision, it was held that after coming into force of the FSSA with effect from 29th July 2010, it would have an overriding effect on other food­related laws, including the PFA. Therefore, the High Court held that invocation of Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC concerning food adulteration pursuant to a Government order dated 11th May 2010 was bad in law. SUBMISSIONS 6. Detailed submissions have been made on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 476­ 478 of 2012. On behalf of the State, reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India & Ors. [(2014) 13 SCC 314] and the State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan & Ors. [(2019) 18 SCC 145] The submission is that there is no bar to the trial of an offender under two different enactments, bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... last of such notification is of 29th July 2010. All the provisions of the FSSA were in force as on 29th July 2010 except Section 22. The offences subject matter of these appeals were registered after 29th July 2010. We have carefully considered the submissions made across the bar. The statement of objects and reasons of the FSSA mentions explicitly that the multiplicity of food laws creates confusion. The multiplicity of laws, standard setting and various implementing/enforcement agencies are detrimental to the growth of the nascent food processing industry. It is further provided that the FSSA provides a single window to guide and regulate the persons engaged in manufacturing, marketing, processing, handling, transport, import and sale of goods. The preamble of the FSSA records that it was an enactment to consolidate the laws relating to food. It is a very comprehensive legislation on all the aspects of food. 9. Clause (zz) of Section 3 of the FSSA defines unsafe food, which reads thus: "(zz) "unsafe food" means an article of food whose nature, substance or quality is so affected as to render it injurious to health: - (i) by the article itself, or its package thereof, wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stance in the article of food makes it unsafe food. Therefore, if any adulterant is added to an article of food, which renders the article of food injurious to health, the food article becomes unsafe food. 12. The offences and penalties are contained in Chapter IX. Sub­Section 1 of Section 48 lays down how any article of food can be rendered injurious to health. Sub­Section 1 of Section 48 reads thus: "(1) A person may render any article of food injurious to health by means of one or more of the following operations, namely: - (a) adding any article or substance to the food; (b) using any article or substance as an ingredient in the preparation of the food; (c) abstracting any constituents from the food; or (d) subjecting the food to any other process or treatment, with the knowledge that it may be sold or offered for sale or distributed for human consumption." Thus, if a person knows that a particular article of food is being offered for sale or distribution for human consumption and adds any adulterant (article or substance) to the food, he renders the food article injurious to health. In Chapter IX, Sections 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 deal wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are very exhaustive provisions made in the FSSA dealing with all aspects of food and food security. 15. In the facts of these cases, the offence under Section 59 of the FSSA is very relevant, which reads thus: "59. Punishment for unsafe food.- Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable,- (i) where such failure or contravention does not result in injury, with [imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and also with fine which may extend to three lakh rupees][1]; (ii) where such failure or contravention results in a nongrievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also with fine which may extend to three lakh rupees; (iii) where such failure or contravention results in a grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and also with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees; (iv) where such failure or contravention results in death, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers or exposes for sale any article of food or drink which has been rendered noxious or has become unfit for food or drink. Section 273 incorporates requirements of knowledge or reasonable belief that the food or drink sold or offered for sale is noxious. Section 59 of the FSSA does not require the presence of intention as contemplated by Section 272 of the IPC. Under Section 59 of the FSSA, a person commits an offence who, whether by himself or by any person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe. So, the offence under Section 59 of the FSSA is made out even if there is an absence of intention as provided in Section 272 of the IPC. However, knowledge is an essential ingredient in sub­Section 1 of Section 48, and therefore, it will be a part of Section 59 of the FSSA. The maximum punishment for the offence under Section 272 of the IPC is imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with a fine. The substantive sentence for the offence punishable under Section 273 is the same, whereas, under Section 59, the punishment is of simple imprisonment extending from three months to a l....