In a recent legal development, a significant judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of India in a case addressing the interplay between the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) and the now-repealed Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA).

The case before the bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Abhay S. Oka,  involved the alleged misbranding of food products and triggered a debate on the jurisdiction of penal provisions under these two acts.

The appellant, a Director of Bharti Retail Limited, faced charges under the PFA for an alleged misbranding offense that occurred on November 29, 2010. Notably, the PFA was repealed on August 5, 2011, but certain penal provisions were preserved by the FSSA, allowing for the continuation of proceedings related to offenses committed under the PFA.

The appellant's legal counsel argued that since specific sections of the FSSA came into force before the alleged offense, the penal provisions of the FSSA should prevail over those of the PFA. The key contention was based on the assertion that after July 29, 2010, the FSSA governed misbranding offenses, rendering the PFA inapplicable.

Additionally, the defense emphasized the relevance of Section 89 of the FSSA, which stipulates that in case of any inconsistency, the FSSA would override the provisions of any other existing law.

The court carefully considered the timelines of the enforcement of various provisions of the FSSA and the PFA. It ruled that since both acts provided for penalties regarding misbranding, and the FSSA had a specific provision (Section 52) for imposing penalties, it would prevail over the PFA.

The court also invoked Section 89 of the FSSA, which established the overriding effect of the FSSA in case of any inconsistency. It held that the FSSA, with its penalty provisions, would take precedence over the more stringent penalties specified under the PFA.

In conclusion, the legal ruling clarified the jurisdictional conflict between the FSSA and the repealed PFA in the context of misbranding offenses. The judgment emphasized the applicability of the FSSA's penal provisions and upheld the principle that the violator should be subject to penalties under the prevailing law at the time of the offense.

Case: Manik Hiru Jhangiani vs State of M.P.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3864 OF 2023
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7041 of 2016)

Click here to read/download Judgment.