S.A.BOBDE, L.NAGESWARA RAO
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan – Respondent
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?
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 (!) (!)
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 manufa
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.