LexMANIK HIRU JHANGIANI versus STATE OF M.P
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 551 : 2023 INSC 1078 551 CASE DETAILS MANIK HIRU JHANGIANI v. STATE OF M.P (Criminal Appeal No. 3864 of 2023) DECEMBER 14, 2023 [ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The question arose when the penal action can be taken under both the statutes-Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which statute would prevail. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) – ss. 52, 89 – Overriding eff ect of this Act over all other food related laws: Held: Eff ect of s. 89 is that if there is an inconsistency between the provisions of the PFA and the FSSA, s. 89 would operate, and provisions of the FSSA would prevail over the provisions of the PFA to the extent to which the same are inconsistent – Consequences of misbranding has been provided under both the enactments, and there is inconsistency in the enactments as regards the penal consequences of misbranding – Thus, in a case where after coming into force of s. 52 of the FSSA, if an act of misbranding is committed by anyone, which is an off ence punishable u/s. 16 of the PFA and which attracts penalty u/s. 52 of the FSSA, s. 52 of the FSSA would override the provisions of PFA – In view thereof, the violator who indulges in misbranding cannot be punished under the PFA and he would be liable to pay penalty under the FSSA in accordance with s. 52 thereof – On facts, on the day on which the alleged off ence of misbranding was committed, the off ender-appellant could have been sentenced to imprisonment u/s. 16 of the PFA and under the FSSA, he could have been directed to pay the penalty up to Rupees 3 lakhs – Punishment under PFA and the penalty under the FSSA cannot be imposed on the violator for the same misbranding because it would amount to double jeopardy, prohibited u/Art. 20(2) of the Constitution – Thus, when the penal action can be taken 552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R. under both statutes, FSSA would prevail – High Court erred in holding that there is no inconsistency between the penal provisions relating to misbranding under the PFA and the FSSA – Hence, the High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings of the prosecution of the appellant u/s. 16 of the PFA – Impugned judgment and order set aside – Proceedings of the criminal case pending before the Magistrate quashed – Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA). [Paras 17, 18, 21] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe & Anr. [1983] 1 SCR 905:(1983) 1 SCC 177; Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2018) 17 SCC 448 – referred to. Hindustan Unilever Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2020] 9 SCR 455:(2020) 10 SCC 751 – distinguished. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.3864 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.05.2016 of the High Court of M.P., Bench at Indore in MCRC No.10611 of 2015. Appearances: Sajjan Poovayya, Sr. Adv., V P Singh, Kamal Shankar, Ms. Arti Singh, Atul N, Kshitiz Rao, Raghav Seth, Palash Maheshwari, Ms. Sanjanthi Sajan Poovayya, Aakashdeep Singh Roda, Ms. Pooja Singh, B P Singh, Advs. for the Appellant. Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Mirza Kayesh Begg, Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, Advs. for the Respondent. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J. 1. Leave granted. 553 FACTUAL ASPECTS 2. Various provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, ‘the FSSA’) were brought into force on diff erent dates. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, ‘the PFA’) was repealed with eff ect from 5th August 2011, as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 97 of the FSSA. 3. The appellant was, at the relevant time, a Director of M/s. Bharti Retail Limited, (for short, ‘Bharti’), a company that is engaged in the business of operating retail stores under the name of ‘Easy Day’ having its outlets all over the country. A Food Inspector appointed under the PFA visited a shop owned by Bharti in Indore and purchased certain biscuit packets from the shop. The visit was made on 29th November 2010. On the next day, a panchnama was drawn, and the samples were sent to the State Food Laboratory, Bhopal, for analysis and testing. The report of the Public Analyst was received on 4th January 2011. On 4th August 2011, a notifi cation was issued under sub-section (1) of Section 97 of the FSSA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.