IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Sale of adulterated food – Concept of unsafe food is more comprehensive than concept of adulterated food – By virtue of Section 89 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Section 59 will override provisions of Sections 272 and 273 of IPC – There will not be any question of simultaneous prosecution under both statutes.
(2) If main Section is unambiguous, aid of title of Section or its marginal note cannot be taken to interpret the same.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1379 of 2011.

2. The issue involved in these appeals is about the interplay between the provisions of Chapter IX of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short ‘the FSSA’) and Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’).

FACTUAL ASPECT

3. Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2012 takes exception to the order dated 5th October 2010 passed by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court. The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of the prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. On 11th May 2010, the State of Uttar Pradesh issued an order granting power to the authorities to initiate prosecutions under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC as well as under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘PFA’). On 28th August 2010, a First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) was lodged by a food inspector representing the Regional Food Controller, Agra, against the petitioner alleging the commission of offences under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. The allegation was that, though the appellant did not possess a licence to sell the commodity of mustard oil, he continued to carry on the business of sale. Another allegation was that the petitioner had adulterated the mustard oil, edible oil and rice brine oil. The petitioner approached the High Court to quash the FIR on various grounds. The appellant relied on Allahabad High Court's decision dated 8th September 2010, in the case of M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2010 SCC Online All. 1708. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. Incidentally, the decision in the case of Pepsico India1 is the subject matter of challenge by the State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 476 478 of 2012. In this case, FIR was registered against the respondent on 11th August 2010, alleging the commission of offences under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. The allegation was of adulteration in the cold drinks manufactured by the respondent. The view taken in the case of Pepsico India (supra) was that, from 29th July 2010, when the FSSA came into force, the provisions thereof would have an overriding effect over the food-related laws, including Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. Further, it was held that the police have no authority or jurisdiction to investigate a case under the FSSA.

4. Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2012 takes an exception to the order dated 15th September 2010, wherein the High Court declined to quash an offence punishable under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1379 of 2011, the challenge is to the order dated 3rd August 2010 of the Allahabad High Court by which a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant for quashing the FIR alleging commission of offences under Section 272 and 273 of the IPC was dismissed.

5. In Short, the controversy is whether the view taken in the case of Pepsico India (supra), which is the subject matter of challenge in Criminal Appeal No. 476-478 of 2012, is correct. In the said decision, it was held that after coming into force of the FSSA with effect from 29th July 2010, it would have an overriding effect on other food-related laws, including the PFA. Therefore, the High Court held that invocation of Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC concerning food adulteration pursuant to a Government order dated 11th May 2010 was bad in law.

SUBMISSIONS

6. Detailed submissions have been made on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 476-478 of 2012. On behalf of the State, reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Swami Achyutanand Tirth vs. Union of India and Others, (2014) 13 SCC 314 and State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan and Othe