IMPORTANT POINTS
Prosecution can be launched for non-compliance of provisions of the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006, Rules or Regulations or orders made thereunder.
Section 188 IPC is not limited to punishable disobedience of law and order. It is attracted even in acts causing or tending to cause danger to human life, health or safety.
There is no bar on trial or conviction under two different enactments. Offender may be punished under either or both enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.

Headnote:(a) Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 – Section 55 – Prosecution can be launched for non-compliance of provisions of the Act, Rules or Regulations or orders. (Para 6)
       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 188 – Not limited to punishable disobedience of law and order – Attracted even in acts causing or tending to cause danger to human life, health or safety – Held, prohibitory order of Commissioner, Food and Safety is an order contemplated under Chapter X, IPC. (Para 6)
       (c) Criminal jurisprudence – Trial or conviction under two different enactments – No bar – Offender may be punished under either or both enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence – Section 26, General Clauses Act, 1897. (Para 7)
       (1969) 3 SCR 65; (1988) 4 SCC 655; (2003) 2 SCC 152; (2014) 9 SCC 772 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       First Information Reports (FIRs) were registered for transportation and sale of Gutka/Pan Masala for offences punishable under Sections 26 and 30 of the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FSS Act’) and Sections 188, 272, 273 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’). The Respondents in the above appeals filed Criminal Writ Petitions and Criminal Applications in the High Court of Bombay for quashing the FIRs. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the Respondents and declared that the Food Safety Officers can proceed against the Respondents under the provisions of Chapter X of the FSS Act.
       Finding of the Court:
       Finding of the High court is erroneous.
       Result: Appeal disposed of, matter remanded.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Prosecution can be launched for non-compliance of the FSS Act, Rules, or Regulations or orders thereunder (Para 6) (!) - Section 188 IPC applies to acts causing or tending to cause danger to life, health or safety, and can be invoked in addition to or alongside FSS Act provisions, including prohibitory orders by the Commissioner (!) - There is no bar to trial or conviction under two different enactments; a person may be punished under either or both, but not twice for the same offence; General Clauses Act Section 26 governs this principle (!) - The High Court’s view that only Section 55 of the FSS Act could apply was incorrect; IPC can be used when ingredients of IPC offences are satisfied (!) - Prohibitory orders issued under FSS Act can be considered as orders contemplated under Chapter X of IPC (!) - Remand to High Court for fresh consideration on whether IPC Sections 188, 272, 273, 328 are made out; no coercive action pending disposal (!) (!) - Appeals disposed of with remand to High Court for afresh consideration on IPC offences; no coercive action during pendency (!) (!) - Facts involve FIRs for transport/sale of gutka/pan masala under both FSS Act sections and IPC sections; analysis centers on prosecutorial scope under dual enforcements (!) (!) - Notifications prohibiting sale of certain tobacco products can be acted upon under IPC Chapter X as a prohibitory order (!) (!)

Question 1?

What is the scope of prosecuting offences under IPC when there is a non-compliance with the Food Safety Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) and its Rules or Orders?

Question 2?

What is the applicability of Section 188 IPC in cases involving prohibitory orders issued by the Commissioner, Food Safety, and whether offences under IPC can be invoked alongside Section 55 of the FSS Act?

Question 3?

Is there a bar on punishing under two different enactments for the same act, and how does General Clauses Act Section 26 apply to concurrent prosecutions under the FSS Act and IPC?

ORDER :

Leave granted.

First Information Reports (FIRs) were registered for transportation and sale of Gutka/Pan Masala for offences punishable under Sections 26 and 30 of the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FSS Act’) and Sections 188, 272, 273 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’). The Respondents in the above appeals filed Criminal Writ Petitions and Criminal Applications in the High Court of Bombay for quashing the FIRs. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the Respondents and declared that the Food Safety Officers can proceed against the Respondents under the provisions of Chapter X of the FSS Act. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Maharashtra is before us.

2. The High Court framed two questions for consideration. They are:

i. Whether the Food Safety Officers can lodge complaints for offences punishable under the IPC?

ii. Whether the acts complained amounted to any offence punishable under the provisions of the IPC?

3. A notification was issued on 18.07.2013 by the Commissioner, Food Safety and Drugs Administration, Government of Maharashtra under Section 30 of the FSS Act prohibiting manufacture, storage, distribution or sale of tobacco, Areca nut, which is either flavored, scented or mixed with any of the said addictives and whether going by the name or form of gutka, pan masala, flavored, scented tobacco, flavored/scented supari, kharra or otherwise by whatsoever name called, whether packaged or unpackaged and/or sold as one product, or though packaged as separate products, sold or distributed in such a manner so as to easily facilitate mixing by the consumer.

4. Crimes were registered pursuant to complaints filed by the Food Safety Officers for violation of the said notification dated 18.07.2013 against the Respondents who were either transporting, stocking and/or selling the prohibited goods.

5. The High Court examined Section 55 of the FSS Act which provides for penalty for non compliance of the directions of the Food Safety Officers. As per the said provision the failure to comply with the requirements of the Act or the Rules or Regulations would result in a penalty which may extend to Rs.2 lakhs. The High Court observed that non compliance of the notification dated 18.07.2013 can be penalized only by imposing of fine mentioned in Section 55 and not otherwise. No complaint for offences under the IPC could have been preferred by the Food Safety Officer for violation of the prohibitory order issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety. The allegations against the Respondents do not have the tendency to cause breach of law and order, according to the High Court. The High Court found that the notification issued by the Commissioner dated 18.07.2013 is not an order contemplated under Chapter X of the IPC. The High Court was of the opinion that Section 55 of the FSS Act being a specific provision made in a special enactment, Section 188 of the IPC is not applicable. The High Court concluded on the first point that any violation of the prohibitory order can be dealt with only under Section 55 of the FSS Act and no other action can be initiated against the Respondents.

6. There is no dispute that Section 55 of the FSS Act provides for penalty to be imposed for non compliance of the requirements of the Act, Rules or Regulations or orders issued thereunder by the Food Safety Officer. But, we are afraid that we cannot agree with the conclusion of the High Court that non compliance of the provisions of the Act, Rules or Regulations or orders cannot be subject matter of a prosecution under IPC unless expressly or impliedly barred. The High Court is clearly wrong in holding that action can be initiated against defaulters only under Section 55 of FSS Act or proceedings under Section 68 for adjudication have to be taken. A further error was committed by the High Court in interpreting the scope of Section 188 of the IPC. Section 188 of the IPC does no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 907