Welcome to Drishti Judiciary - Powered by Drishti IAS
         








Home / Current Affairs

Criminal Law

Food Adulteration

    «    »
 22-Dec-2023

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Justice Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol have observed that where an offense would attract the penal provisions under both the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA), as well as the Food Safety and Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the provisions of the FSSA, will prevail over the PFA.

  • The Supreme Court gave this judgment in the case of Manik Hiru Jhangiani v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.

What is the Background of Manik Hiru Jhangiani v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Case?

  • The appellant was, at the relevant time, a Director of M/s. Bharti Retail Limited.
  • A company that is engaged in the business of operating retail stores under the name of 'Easy Day,' having its outlets all over the country.
  • A Food Inspector appointed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA) visited a shop in Indore and purchased certain biscuit packets from the shop. The samples were sent to the State Food Laboratory and the report was received.
  • On 5th August 2011, the PFA was repealed. The same was notified under subsection (1) of Section 97 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA).
  • However, sub-section (4) of Section 97 of the act provided that notwithstanding the repeal of the PFA, cognizance of the offence committed under the PFA can be taken within three years from the date of commencement of the FSSA.
  • The Food Inspector filed a charge sheet on 12th August 2011. The cognizance of the offence, under PFA, was taken against the appellant.
  • The appellant approached the High Court to quash the proceedings. The HC dismissed its plea noting that in view of sub-section (4) of Section 97 of FSSA, cognizance can be taken for an offence under PFA. The matter approached the SC.
  • The court noted that the alleged offence is punishable under Section 16(1)(a) of the PFA, which prescribes imprisonment for a term that may not be less than six months and in a corresponding provision (Section 52) under FSSA, the punishment was in terms of penalty and not imprisonment.
  • The Court noted that though the PFA was repealed with effect from 5th August 2011, Section 3 of the FSSA which defines 'misbranded food' came into force on 28th May 2008.
  • Thus, the offender could have been either sentenced to imprisonment under Section 16 of the PFA or under the FSSA, he could have been directed to pay the penalty.
  • The apex court quashed the pending criminal proceedings against the appellants and clarified that this judgment will not prevent the authorities under the FSSA from taking recourse to the provisions of Section 52 following the law.

What was the Court’s Observation?

  • When it comes to the consequences of misbranding, the same has been provided under both the enactments, and there is inconsistency in the enactments as regards the penal consequences of misbranding.
  • Thus, in a case where after coming into force of Section 52 of the FSSA, if an act of misbranding is committed by anyone, which is an offence punishable under Section 16 of PFA and which attracts penalty under Section 52 of the FSSA, Section 52 of the FSSA will override the provisions of PFA.

What is the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA)?

  • The act provides the protection from adulteration / contamination of food that may lead to the health risk of consumers.
  • The act deals with the frauds also that can be perpetrated by the dealers by supplying cheaper or adulterated foods.

What is the Food Safety and Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA)?

  • The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is a statutory body under the administration of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.
  • It regulates the manufacture, storage, distribution, sale, and import of food articles, while also establishing standards to ensure food safety.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

  • Section 272 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Adulteration of Food or Drinks intended for Sale.
    • Any person who commits an offence of adulteration of food or drink is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or both.
  • Section 273 of IPC: Sale of noxious food or drink
    • Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
  • Case Law:
    • Parle Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Thakore Kacharaji (1987):
      • The Gujarat High Court laid down that:
        • Section 272 and Section 273 of IPC are not a ‘corresponding law’ to the provisions of PFA ACT, 1954 since Section 16 of the act provides for stricter punishment whereas under Section 272 of IPC, the punishment is less severe. Also, to constitute an offence under Section 272, mens rea is an important element which can be missing when the offence is brought under the PFA ACT.
        • The provisions of IPC are not repugnant or inconsistent with the provisions of PFA Act, so no question of repeal arises under Section 25 of PFA act.
        • Both the PFA Act and Section 272 or Section 273 of IPC have applicability for the offence of adulteration, but it must be seen that the offender is not punished twice.