The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 overrides the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act regarding penalties for food adulteration, allowing for fines instead of imprisonment in instances of misbranding.

ORDER :

G. S. Ahluwalia, J.

This Criminal Revision, under Section 397 /401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2024 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.210/2022 thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.10.2022 passed by JMFC, Morena in RCT No.2800340/2011 by which applicant has been convicted under Section 7 /16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and has been sentenced to undergo RI of six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default RI of one month.

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that on 29.08.2010 at about 01:30 pm, sample of milk was collected from Tanker No.MP06-GA-0526. The report of Public Analyst was obtained, according to which the sample was found to be adulterated. Applicant filed an application for retesting by Central Laboratory. The report of Central Laboratory Ex.D-1 was also received. It is found that sample of milk does not conform to the standards laid down under Item No.A.11.01.11 of Appendix B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, in that solid not fat is below the minimum prescribed limits and Test for Glucose is positive. The sample was, thus, found adulterated.

3. Challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by courts below, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that since milk was collected on 29.08.2010 and by that time, the Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006 had already come into existence, therefore, conviction of applicant for offence under Section 7 /16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is bad. Even otherwise under Section 57 of Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006, the maximum prescribed sentence is fine of Rs.2,00,000/- or Rs.10,00,000/-. It is submitted that since adulterant was not found injurious to health, therefore, jail sentence awarded to applicant may be set aside and a fine of Rs.Two lacs may be imposed.

4. Heard learned counsel for applicant.

5. Admittedly, the sample was collected on 29.08.2010 whereas as per notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, dated 04.08.2011, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was repealed with effect from 05.08.2011.

6. Thus, it is clear that on the date when the sample was collected, applicant could have been convicted under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as well as under Food Safety and Standards Act (In short FSSA).

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Manik Hiru Jhangiani Vs. State of M.P. decided on 14-12-2023 passed in Cr.A. No. 3864 of 2023 has held as under :

17. In this case, on the day on which the alleged offence was committed, the offender could have been sentenced to imprisonment under Section 16 of the PFA and under the FSSA, he could have been directed to pay the penalty up to Rupees 3 lakhs. The punishment under PFA and the penalty under the FSSA cannot be imposed on the violator for the same misbranding because it will amount to double jeopardy, which is prohibited under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. Thus, when the penal action can be taken under both statutes, the question is which will prevail. An answer to the said question has been provided by Section 89 of the FSSA, which reads thus:

“89. Overriding effect of this Act over all other food related laws. – The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.”