Published on: 22nd October 2025
Authored by: Kommuru Shanmuk Datta
O.P. Jindal Global University
COURT:
The Supreme Court of India
BENCH:
Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
21 February, 2024
RELEVANT SECTIONS:
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (IPC) – Section 272
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (IPC) – Section 273
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (IPC) – Section 5
FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT, 2006 – Section 59
FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT, 2006 – Section 89
FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT, 2006 – Section 3(zz)
GENERAL CLAUSE ACT, 1897 – Section 26
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA) (now repealed)
BRIEF FACTS:
Ram Nath was alleged by a food inspector that he was selling mustard oil without a proper licence. He was also accused of selling adulterated mustard oil and rice bran oil. He was charged with IPC Section 272 and Section 273. They deal with adulteration of food and sale of harmful food products respectively. Ram Nath had made his legal request to quash the FIR at the High court. He requested arguing that the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006 applies instead of Indian Penal Code. The High Court denied the request. He has appealed before the Supreme Court.
Background of Legislation:
The Food Safety and Standards Act was created for consolidation of laws which are related to food safety and establish a statutory body, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. This acts as a uniform, single window mechanism succeeding Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to ensure safe consumption of food.
Events:
- On 11th May 2010, State government of Uttar Pradesh said that the prosecution of food adulteration must be done through Indian Penal Code, Section 272 and 273 and Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
- On 29 July 2010, the Food Safety and Standards Act came into force. All substantive provisions of it came into effect. This act replaces all laws that are related to its sphere.
- In the same year, in August, the Food inspector filed a FIR against Ram Nath claiming that he was adulterating mustard oil and other edible oils without a proper licence.
- FIR was charged under the IPC Sections of 272 and 273, which deal with adulteration of food and sale of noxious food products.
Litigation Trajectory:
- Ram Nath was charged under the Sections 272 and 273 for the offences that happened after 29th of July. That is the date after FSSA came into full force.
- Ram Nath requested Allahabad High Court to quash the FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC.
- He cited the judgement of Pepsico India Holdings v. State of Uttar Pradesh where the court held that FSSA must be used for prosecution instead of IPC
- State of Uttar Pradesh said that there could be a simultaneous prosecution with IPC and FSSA
- The High Court dismissed the petition of Ram Nath. This caused conflicting decisions
Wider Impact:
After the denial of his request to quash the FIR at the High Court. He made an appeal to the Supreme Court. The main legal issue that was raised before the Supreme Court was whether the Sections 272 and 273 of Indian Penal Code are valid for prosecution for adulteration and sale of them. Several appeals reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Those matters were heard together. This was done to clarify whether simultaneous prosecutions are possible and can authorities use IPC instead of FSSA for offenses relating to food safety and specifically adulteration in this matter.
ISSUES:
- Are IPC sections 272 and 273 valid after the enactment of the Food Safety and Standards Act?
- Does FSSA cover all aspects of food safety and is it exhaustive and self contained?
- Does FSSA Section 59 have an overriding effect over IPC?
- Can there be simultaneous prosecution under both IPC and FSSA?
- Was the High Court decision of refusing the request of quashing FIR correct?
ARGUMENTS:
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- FSSA is a complete law, which looks over all aspects of food safety including adulteration. This overrides IPC sections 272 and 273 because of Section 89 of Food Safety and Standards Act.
- Section 5 of IPC states that “certain laws or provisions of any act or any special laws will not be affected by IPC”.
- Petitioners cited judgements of “Jeewan Kumar Raut v. CBI” and “Aman Mittal v. State of U.P”, where it was said that special laws prevail over general provisions.
- Section 59 of FSSA gives a well structured penalisation than IPC.
- Parallel prosecution is allowed only when there is no overriding clause in special law according to Section 29 of General Clauses Act, 1897 (GC Act). Here Section 89 is present in FSSA
- FSSA was made with the purpose of creating a single, unified, single window regulatory mechanism for food safety and other issues related to it.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- Section 89 of FSSA does not override IPC provisions as it is not a food related law. This argument was raised based on the marginal heading which says, “overriding effect of this Act over all other food-related laws”. IPC deals with general punishment and criminality, whereas FSSA is special legislation. FSSA covers distinct fields. There can be coexistence of both.
- Cited judgements of “Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India” and “State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan”, where it is said prosecution can happen with different laws if there is no double jeopardy or duplication of punishment.
- Prosecution under different statutes is permitted by virtue of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act if there is no double jeopardy or repeated punishment.
- IPC Sections are relevant even after implementation of special laws, when criminal intent is present.
JUDGEMENT:
Appeals filed by RamNath were allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Apex Court has quashed prosecutions under IPC Section 272 and 273.
Reasoning:
- FSSA is a complete law, which looks over all aspects of food safety including adulteration. FSSA includes all procedural provisions that are covering manufacturing, sale and distribution of food products.
- Section 3(zz) defines “unsafe food” as “an article of food whose nature, substance is so affected as to render it injurious to health”. This definition is broader and relevant IPC terms, “noxious” or “adulterated”.
- Section 59 gives out punishment for manufacturing, storing, distribution or import of unsafe food. The punishment may be from imprisonment from three months to imprisonment for life. Could be fined from three lakh rupees to ten lakh rupees based on the seriousness of injury.
- Indian Penal Code penalises with mild punishments when compared with FSSA. A maximum fine a person could get is 1000 rupees and an imprisonment of six months.
- Investigation, summary trials and remedies are clearly specified in FSSA. This Act has an overriding nature where FSSA prevailed over Criminal Procedure Code. This demonstrates the intention of the legislature to make it self contained, complete and independent.
- IPC is prevailed by FSSA as it is a special law. When special and general law deal with the same matter, special laws repeals general laws.
- Section 89 of FSSA states that, “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”. This applies to every law that is inconsistent, not just food related laws.
- Respondents, State of Uttar Pradesh cited judgements of “Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India” and “State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan”. These judgements were given in situations where special laws do not have overriding elements. But Section 89 gives FSSA overriding effect.
- Simultaneous prosecution of IPC and FSSA is not permissible. FSSA covers everything that is present and relevant to the issue. So, Section 59 of FSSA and Section 272 and 273 of IPC cannot be used for prosecution simultaneously.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 prevails over Indian Penal Code in the context of food related matters by the virtue of Section 89 of FSSA. Section 272 and 273 of IPC are displaced, as FSSA is a special law which is an exclusive jurisdiction related to food safety and it is said that special laws repeals general provisions.
OBITER DICTA:
- Court noted that intention behind creation of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is to reduce confusion, enforce uniform regulatory system and enhance food laws. Existence of multiple laws to look after food related issues is one the reasons for creation and introduction of FSSA
- Terms of IPC, “noxious” and “adulteration” in the Section 272 and 273 are narrower when compared to the term “unsafe food” in Section 59 of FSSA
- Meaning of Section 89 of FSSA must not be changed or restricted. Actual wording of the section or language of the section is straight forward and clear.
FINAL DECISION:
- Criminal Appeal No.479 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1379 of 2011 : Allowed.
- High Courts orders of refusing FIR quash petitions were set aside.
- FIRs and proceedings under IPC Sections 272 and 273: Quashed.
- Allowed to start proceedings under Food Safety and Standards Act if not initiated.
- No order as to costs.
