A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Ram Nath v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. addressed the interplay between the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) and sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Court emphasized that by virtue of section 89 of the FSSA, this Act has an overriding effect over all other inconsistent laws, including sections 272 and 273 of IPC. The judgment clarified that simultaneous prosecutions under the FSSA and IPC are impermissible. The Court quashed the FIRs filed under the IPC provisions and held that actions concerning food adulteration or unsafe food must be governed exclusively by the FSSA. This decision highlighted the broader and more stringent framework of the FSSA to address issues relating to food safety and public health.

Keywords: Overriding effect, Food adulteration, Unsafe food, Penal Code, Simultaneous prosecution.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Ram Nath v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2012
iii) Judgment Date: 21 February 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.
vi) Author: Justice Abhay S. Oka
vii) Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 743
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 272 and 273, IPC; Sections 59, 89, FSSA, 2006.
ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None explicitly, but clarification on simultaneous prosecutions under IPC and FSSA.
x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects: Food Safety Law, Criminal Law, Public Health Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appeal stemmed from FIRs filed under sections 272 and 273 of IPC in relation to allegations of food adulteration and sale of unsafe food products. With the advent of the FSSA, the issue arose whether the IPC provisions could still be invoked for food adulteration cases. The Allahabad High Court’s refusal to quash such prosecutions led to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether the FSSA, as a comprehensive statute, excluded IPC’s application to food-related offences post its enforcement.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The State of Uttar Pradesh initiated prosecutions under sections 272 and 273 of IPC and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA), alleging food adulteration.
2. FIRs accused the appellant of selling adulterated mustard oil without proper licenses.
3. The Allahabad High Court dismissed petitions to quash the FIRs, relying on its judgment in M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
4. The appellants contested the prosecutions, arguing the overriding applicability of the FSSA.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether sections 272 and 273 of the IPC can apply to cases covered under the FSSA.
2. Whether the FSSA’s section 89 bars simultaneous prosecution under IPC provisions.
3. Whether the FSSA provisions provide adequate coverage and penalties for food-related offences.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The FSSA, being a special law, overrides general provisions of the IPC, including sections 272 and 273.
2. Section 89 of the FSSA explicitly grants it supremacy over inconsistent provisions in any other law.
3. Prosecutions under IPC for food-related offences would defeat the legislative intent behind the FSSA.
4. The definitions and penalties under the FSSA comprehensively address the concerns of food adulteration and safety, making IPC provisions redundant.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The State argued that IPC provisions are distinct and address public safety broadly, allowing simultaneous application with the FSSA.
2. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 permits prosecution under two statutes if different facets of the offence are addressed.
3. The IPC provisions are not restricted to food laws and should apply wherever adulteration or sale of harmful food endangers public health.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that section 89 of the FSSA explicitly overrides all other inconsistent laws. Therefore, offences related to food safety must be prosecuted exclusively under the FSSA.

b. Obiter Dicta
The Court remarked on the exhaustive nature of the FSSA and its provisions, which ensure stricter penalties and more comprehensive regulation compared to the IPC.

c. Guidelines

1. Simultaneous prosecutions under FSSA and IPC for food-related offences are impermissible.
2. Authorities must prioritize the FSSA for cases concerning food safety and public health.
3. Courts should consider the legislative intent of creating a unified and specialized food safety law through the FSSA.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the legislative intent behind the FSSA as the sole framework for addressing food safety issues. The judgment strengthens public health law by focusing on specialized statutes and avoiding duplication in prosecutions.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India, (2014) 13 SCC 314.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan, (2019) 18 SCC 145.
3. State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 389.
4. Jeewan Kumar Raut v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 7 SCC 526.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. General Clauses Act, 1897.
4. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.