Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2024 - Criminal Minor Acts

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006If a case is registered against an accused for food adulteration under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), then by virtue of the overriding effect of Section 89 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (“FSSA”), the proceedings under IPC cannot be continued against the accused. There cannot be simultaneous prosecution under the IPC and FSSA because by virtue of Section 89 of FSSA, Section 59 of FSSA would override the provisions of Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 160Section 3 (zz) and (zx) - “unsafe food” - the concept of unsafe food is more comprehensive than the concept of adulterated food. Unsafe food means an article of food whose nature, substance or quality is so affected as to render it injurious to health. Substandard food cannot be unsafe food. By adding a substance directly or as an ingredient which is not permitted makes an article of food unsafe food. The presence of any harmful substance in the article of food makes it unsafe food. Therefore, if any adulterant is added to an article of food, which renders the article of food injurious to health, the food article becomes unsafe food. (Para 9 - 11) Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 160Section 273 of the IPC applies when a person sells or, offers or exposes for sale any article of food or drink which has been rendered noxious or has become unfit for food or drink. Section 273 incorporates requirements of knowledge or reasonable belief that the food or drink sold or offered for sale is noxious. Section 59 of the FSSA does not require the presence of intention as contemplated by Section 272 of the IPC. Under Section 59 of the FSSA, a person commits an offence who, whether by himself or by any person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe. So, the offence under Section 59 of the FSSA is made out even if there is an absence of intention as provided in Section 272 of the IPC. (Para 18) Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 160The prosecution under IPC can't be continued because Section 89 of FSSA provides an overriding effect to the provisions of the FSSA over any other law in so far as the law applies to the aspects of food in the field covered by the FSSA. Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 160The title of the section indeed indicates that the intention is to give an overriding effect to the FSSA over all 'food related laws'. However, in the main Section, there is no such restriction confined to 'food related laws', and it is provided that provisions of the FSSA shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. So, the Section indicates that an overriding effect is given to the provisions of the FSSA over any other law. (Para 20) Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 160When the offences under Section 272 and 273 of the IPC are made out, even the offence under Section 59 of the FSSA will be attracted. In fact, the offence under Section 59 of the FSSA is more stringent. (Para 20) Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 160Goonda ActTelangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (Act 1986); Section 2(g) – Preventive detention is challenged – Difference between 'law and order' and 'public order' – In order to pass an order of detention under the Act 1986 against any person, the Detaining Authority must be satisfied that he is a “GOONDA” within the meaning of Section 2(g) and to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it necessary that he is preventively detained. Held, mere registration of the two FIRs for the alleged offences of robbery etc. could not have been made the basis to preventively detaining the appellant herein on the assumption that he is a “GOONDA”. What has been alleged against the detenu could have raised the problems relating to 'law and order' but it is difficult to say that they impinged on 'public order'. Further held, to bring the activities of a person within the expression of “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” the activities must be of such a nature that the ordinary laws cannot deal with them or prevent subversive activities affecting society. The true distinction between the areas of 'law and order' and 'public order' lies not merely in the nature or quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its...

Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2024 - Criminal Minor Acts

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags