{"id":1651,"date":"2024-03-26T15:49:57","date_gmt":"2024-03-26T10:19:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1651"},"modified":"2024-03-26T15:49:57","modified_gmt":"2024-03-26T10:19:57","slug":"supreme-court-holds-that-an-overriding-effect-is-given-to-the-provisions-of-the-fssa-over-ipc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-holds-that-an-overriding-effect-is-given-to-the-provisions-of-the-fssa-over-ipc\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court holds that an overriding effect is given to the provisions of the FSSA over IPC"},"content":{"rendered":"

RAM NATH\u00a0 \u00a0 [<\/strong>APPELLANT]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 <\/strong>THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. [<\/strong>RESPONDENT(S)]<\/h1>\n

(CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2012)<\/p>\n

(2JB, Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol JJ., delivered by ABHAY S. OKA, J<\/strong>.)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The issue involved in these appeals is about the interplay between the provisions of Chapter IX of the Food\u00a0\u00a0 Safety\u00a0\u00a0 and\u00a0\u00a0 Standards\u00a0\u00a0 Act,\u00a0 2006\u00a0 (for\u00a0\u00a0 short,\u00a0\u00a0 \u2018the FSSA\u2019) and Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, \u2018the IPC\u2019).<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0 Whether the view taken in the case of Pepsico India, which is the subject matter of challenge in Criminal Appeal No. 476\u00ad478 of 2012, is correct?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellants:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The submission is that there is no bar to the trial of an offender under two different enactments, but the bar is only to the punishment of the offender twice for the same offence. The learned counsel submitted that where an act or omission constitutes an offence\u00a0\u00a0 under\u00a0\u00a0 two enactments, the\u00a0\u00a0 offender\u00a0\u00a0 may\u00a0\u00a0 be prosecuted under either one of the two enactments or both enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. Reliance was placed upon Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for short, \u2018the GC Act\u2019). Learned counsel for the State also relied upon another decision of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. and Ors. He submitted that the area of operation of the IPC and a food\u00ad related law like the FSSA are entirely different and, therefore, the same are mutually exclusive. The learned counsel urged that Section 89 gives overriding effect to the provisions of the FSSA over all other food \u00adrelated laws,\u00a0 as\u00a0\u00a0 is\u00a0\u00a0 evident\u00a0\u00a0 from\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 title\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 Section.\u00a0\u00a0 He submitted that the IPC is not a food\u00ad related law by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore, wherever Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC are attracted even after coming into force of the FSSA, the offender can be prosecuted under the said IPC provisions.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The\u00a0\u00a0 learned\u00a0\u00a0 counsel\u00a0\u00a0 appearing\u00a0\u00a0 for\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 accused invited our attention to the objects and reasons of the FSSA\u00a0\u00a0 and\u00a0\u00a0 its\u00a0\u00a0 preamble.\u00a0\u00a0 Their\u00a0\u00a0 submission\u00a0\u00a0 is\u00a0\u00a0 that\u00a0\u00a0 the FSSA\u00a0\u00a0 is\u00a0\u00a0 very\u00a0\u00a0 exhaustive\u00a0\u00a0 legislation\u00a0\u00a0 dealing\u00a0\u00a0 with\u00a0\u00a0 all aspects of food, including adulteration, unsafe food, etc. Their\u00a0\u00a0 submission\u00a0\u00a0 is\u00a0\u00a0 that\u00a0\u00a0 Section\u00a0\u00a0 89\u00a0\u00a0 will\u00a0\u00a0 have\u00a0\u00a0 an overriding\u00a0\u00a0 effect\u00a0\u00a0 over\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 provisions\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 IPC.\u00a0\u00a0 Our attention is also invited to Section 5 and Section 41 of the IPC. The submission is that in view of Section 5, any special law will remain unaffected by the provisions of the IPC. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in the case of\u00a0 Jeewan\u00a0 Kumar\u00a0\u00a0 Raut\u00a0 &\u00a0\u00a0 Anr.\u00a0\u00a0 v.\u00a0\u00a0 Central Bureau of Investigation. The counsel for the accused also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh\u00a0\u00a0 v.\u00a0 Aman Mittal and Anr, support of the proposition that the FSSA, being a special law, will exclude the applicability of the IPC for the\u00a0\u00a0 fields\u00a0\u00a0 which\u00a0\u00a0 are\u00a0\u00a0 covered\u00a0\u00a0 by\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 provisions\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the special Act.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court dismissed the present appeals and held that, \u201cThe settled law is that if the main Section is unambiguous, the aid of the title of the Section or its marginal note cannot be taken to interpret the same. Only if it is ambiguous, the title of the section or the marginal note can be looked into to understand the intention of the legislature. Therefore, the main Section clearly gives overriding effect to the provisions of the FSSA over any other law in so far as the law applies to the aspects of food in the field covered by the\u00a0\u00a0 FSSA.\u00a0\u00a0 In\u00a0\u00a0 this\u00a0\u00a0 case, we\u00a0\u00a0 are\u00a0\u00a0 concerned\u00a0\u00a0 only\u00a0\u00a0 with Sections\u00a0\u00a0 272\u00a0\u00a0 and\u00a0\u00a0 273\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 IPC.\u00a0\u00a0 When\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 offences under Section 272 and 273 of the IPC are made out, even the\u00a0\u00a0 offence\u00a0\u00a0 under\u00a0\u00a0 Section\u00a0\u00a0 59\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 FSSA\u00a0\u00a0 will\u00a0\u00a0 be attracted. In fact, the offence under Section 59 of the FSSA is more stringent.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

RAM NATH\u00a0 \u00a0 [APPELLANT]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. [RESPONDENT(S)] (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2012) (2JB, Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol JJ., delivered by ABHAY S. OKA, J.)   Facts: The issue involved in these appeals is about the interplay between the provisions of Chapter IX of the Food\u00a0\u00a0 Safety\u00a0\u00a0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1653,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1651","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1651","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1651"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1651\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1655,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1651\/revisions\/1655"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1653"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1651"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1651"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1651"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}