Supreme Court Rules: Food Safety and Standards Act Trumps Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in Case of Inconsistency

In a landmark decision on December 14, the Supreme Court declared that, when faced with an offense falling under both the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA), and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA), the provisions of the FSSA would take precedence over the PFA to the extent of any inconsistency.

During the hearing, a Division Bench consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol addressed the matter at hand. The case involved the appellant, who, at the relevant time, served as a Director of M/s. Bharti Retail Limited. This company operated retail stores under the name ‘Easy Day’ across the country. The allegations stemmed from a visit by a Food Inspector under the PFA to a Bharti-owned shop in Indore on November 29, 2010, where certain biscuit packets were purchased. Despite subsequent developments, the matter reached the Supreme Court.

The pivotal moment came on August 5, 2011, when the PFA was repealed, as notified under subsection (1) of Section 97 of the FSSA. However, sub-section (4) of Section 97 of the FSSA allowed for the cognizance of offenses committed under the PFA within three years from the commencement of the FSSA.

In response to these changes, a charge sheet was filed on August 12, 2011, leading to the appellant facing charges under the PFA for misbranding. Seeking relief, the appellant approached the High Court, but their plea was dismissed, citing sub-section (4) of Section 97 of the FSSA as a basis for taking cognizance of the offense under the PFA. With this backdrop, the case reached the Supreme Court.

The Court delved into the legal aspects, emphasizing that the alleged offense fell under Section 16(1)(a) of the PFA, prescribing imprisonment, while the corresponding provision (Section 52) under the FSSA imposed a penalty, not imprisonment.

Crucially, the Court noted that although the PFA was repealed in 2011, Section 3 of the FSSA, defining ‘misbranded food,’ came into effect in 2008. This raised the question of which statute would prevail when penal action could be taken under both.

The Court turned to Section 89 of the FSSA, which stipulates that in case of inconsistency between the PFA and the FSSA, the latter’s provisions would have an overriding effect.

The Court concluded, stating, “In a case where after coming into force of Section 52 of the FSSA, if an act of misbranding is committed… Section 52 of the FSSA will override the provisions of PFA.”

Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the pending criminal proceedings against the appellants, clarifying that this judgment would not impede authorities under the FSSA from invoking Section 52 as per the law.

(Reference: MANIK HIRU JHANGIANI vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH., Diary No.- 27038 – 2016)