In this case, on the day on which the alleged offence was
committed, the offender could have been sentenced to
imprisonment under Section 16 of the PFA and under the FSSA,
he could have been directed to pay the penalty up to Rupees 3
lakhs. The punishment under PFA and the penalty under the
FSSA cannot be imposed on the violator for the same
misbranding because it will amount to double jeopardy, which
is prohibited under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
Thus, when the penal action can be taken under both statutes,
the question is which will prevail. An answer to the said
question has been provided by Section 89 of the FSSA, which
reads thus:
“89. Overriding effect of this Act
over all other food related laws. –
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.” {Para 17}
18. The effect of Section 89 is that if there is an inconsistency
between the provisions of the PFA and the FSSA, the provisions
of the FSSA will have an overriding effect over the provisions of
the PFA. When it comes to the consequences of misbranding,
the same has been provided under both the enactments, and
there is inconsistency in the enactments as regards the penal
consequences of misbranding. As pointed out earlier, one
provides for imposing only a penalty in terms of payment of
money, and the other provides imprisonment for not less than
six months. In view of the inconsistency, Section 89 of the
FSSA will operate, and provisions of the FSSA will prevail over
the provisions of the PFA to the extent to which the same are
inconsistent. Thus, in a case where after coming into force of
Section 52 of the FSSA, if an act of misbranding is committed
by anyone, which is an offence punishable under Section 16 of
PFA and which attracts penalty under Section 52 of the FSSA,
Section 52 of the FSSA will override the provisions of PFA.
Therefore, in such a situation, in view of the overriding effect
given to the provisions of the FSSA, the violator who indulges
in misbranding cannot be punished under the PFA and he will
be liable to pay penalty under the FSSA in accordance with
Section 52 thereof.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3864 OF 2023
Manik Hiru Jhangiani Vs State of M.P.
Author: ABHAY S. OKA, J.
Citation: 2023 INSC 1078.
Read full Judgment here: Click here
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment