Holding

Section 89 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 gives the Act an overriding effect over Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC, so the offence under Section 59 of the FSSA subsumes the IPC offences and simultaneous prosecution is not allowed.

Summary

The petitioners, Ram Nath and others, challenged prosecutions under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for alleged adulteration and sale of noxious food, arguing that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) had an overriding effect. The State of Uttar Pradesh contended that simultaneous prosecution under both statutes was permissible and relied on earlier decisions and the General Clauses Act. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 89 of the FSSA, which declares the Act's provisions to have effect notwithstanding any inconsistency with other laws, and interpreted it as giving the FSSA supremacy over any other law relating to food, including the IPC. The Court held that when an offence under Sections 272 or 273 IPC is made out, the more stringent offence under Section 59 of the FSSA is also attracted, rendering separate IPC prosecution impermissible. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders allowing IPC prosecutions, quashed the offences, and directed that authorities proceed only under the FSSA, while dismissing the appeals that sought to continue IPC proceedings.

Issues considered

The extent to which Section 89 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 overrides Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code.
Whether simultaneous prosecution for the same conduct under the FSSA and the IPC is permissible.
Whether the offence under Section 59 of the FSSA subsumes the offences under Sections 272 and 273 IPC.
How the term ‘food‑related laws’ in Section 89 should be interpreted – narrowly or broadly.
Whether the knowledge/intention requirements under the IPC affect the applicability of the FSSA provisions.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 262-265, s. 29, s. 468, s. 473, s. 482
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006s. 34, s. 3(a), s. 3(zx), s. 3(zz), s. 48, s. 59, s. 73, s. 74, s. 76, s. 77, s. 78, s. 79, s. 80, s. 89
General Clauses Act, 1897s. 26
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 272, s. 273, s. 41, s. 5
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

Subjects

overriding effectfood adulterationintentionknowledgereasonable beliefsimultaneous prosecutioninterpretation of statutessection unambiguousaid of title

Judgment

[2024] 2 S.C.R. 743 : 2024 INSC 138

Ram Nath
v.
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2012)
21 February 2024
[Abhay S. Oka* and Sanjay Karol, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Interplay between the provisions of Chapter IX of the Food Safety
and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) and ss.272 and 273 of the Penal
Code, 1860; whether the view taken by the Allahabad High Court
in the case of M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. & Anr v. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., holding that after coming into force of
the FSSA w.e.f 29th July 2010, it would have an overriding effect
on other food related laws, including the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 and ss. 272, 273, IPC, challenged in Criminal
Appeal No. 476-478 of 2012 is correct.

Headnotes
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – ss.89, 59 – Overriding
effect of this Act over all other food related laws – Punishment
for unsafe food – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.272, 273 – Adulteration
of food or drink intended for sale – Sale of noxious food or
drink – State of Uttar Pradesh issued an order granting power
to the authorities to initiate prosecutions u/ss.272 and 273, IPC
as well as under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
– FIRs were filed alleging commission of offences u/ss.272,
273, IPC – Petitions seeking quashing thereof, dismissed by
High Court – Accused herein inter alia pleaded that s.89 will
have an overriding effect over the provisions of the IPC:
Held: By virtue of s.89 of the FSSA, s.59 will override the
provisions of ss.272 and 273, IPC – Therefore, there will not
be any question of simultaneous prosecution under both the
statutes – Impugned orders set aside in Criminal Appeal Nos.
472 of 2012, 479 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal arising out of
SLP (Crl.) No. 1379 of 2011 – The offences, subject matter
of these appeals are quashed and set aside – Authorities
at liberty to act in accordance with the FSSA for offences
* Author
744 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

punishable u/s.59 of the FSSA – Criminal Appeal Nos. 476-
478 of 2012, dismissed. [Paras 21, 22]
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – ss.59, 48 – Penal
Code, 1860 – ss.272, 273 – Offence u/s.59 of the FSSA
made out even in absence of intention as provided in
s.272, IPC – Knowledge an essential ingredient in sub-
sec.1 of s.48, and thus, a part of s.59, FSSA:
Held: When the offences u/ss.272 and 273, IPC are made
out, even the offence u/s.59 of the FSSA will be attracted
– In fact, offence u/s.59 of the FSSA is more stringent –
s.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 – s.273
incorporates requirements of knowledge or reasonable belief
that the food or drink sold or offered for sale is noxious –
s.59 of the FSSA does not require the presence of intention
as contemplated by s.272, IPC – Under s.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 u/s.59 of the FSSA is made
out even if there is an absence of intention as provided in
s.272, IPC – However, knowledge is an essential ingredient
in sub-sec.1 of s.48, and therefore, it will be a part of s.59
of the FSSA. [Para 18]
Interpretation of Statutes – Food Safety and Standards
Act, 2006 – s.89 – Overriding effect of this Act over all
other food related laws – Main Section gives overriding
effect to the provisions of the FSSA over any other law
– Section unambiguous, aid of the title of the Section or
its marginal note not to be taken to interpret the same:
Held: The 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
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 745

Ram Nath v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

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 – The settled law is that if
the main Section is unambiguous, the aid of the title of the
Section or its marginal note cannot be taken to interpret the
same – Only if it is ambiguous, the title of the section or the
marginal note can be looked into to understand the intention
of the legislature – Therefore, the main Section clearly gives
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. [Para 20]
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Chapter IX – ss.49-
58 – Offences and Penalties – Chapter X – Adjudication
and Food Safety Appellate Tribunal – Discussed – Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – s.3 clause (zz),
(a), (zx) – “unsafe food”; “adulterant”; “sub-standard”:
Held: 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 – 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 – Further, substandard food cannot be unsafe food.
[Paras 9-11]
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Objects and
reasons – Discussed.
Case Law Cited
Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India & Ors, (2014)
13 SCC 314; State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Sayyed
Hassan Sayyed Subhan & Ors., (2019) 18 SCC 145;
State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. and Ors.,
[2003] Suppl. 2 SCR 727 : (2003) 7 SCC 389; Jeewan
Kumar Raut & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation,
[2009] 10 SCR 272 : (2009) 7 SCC 526; State of Uttar
746 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Pradesh v. Aman Mittal and Anr, [2019] 11 SCR 1180 :
(2019) 19 SCC 740 – referred to.
M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. & Anr v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, 2010 SCC OnLine
All 1708 – approved.
List of Acts
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006; Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973; General Clauses Act, 1897.
List of Keywords
Overriding effect; Food/drink adulteration; Intention;
Knowledge; Reasonable belief; Simultaneous prosecution;
Interpretation of Statutes; Section unambiguous, Aid of the
title of the Section/marginal note.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 472
of 2012
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.10.2010 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in WPCRL No. 18831 of 2010
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 479, 476-478 Of 2012 And Criminal Appeal No.
1068 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG., Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G.,
Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Garvesh Kabra, Amit Singh, Mrs. Nikita
Jaju, Ahmer Shaikh, Yadunandan Bansal, Rauf Rahim, Ali Asghar
Rahim, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Dheeraj Nair, Kumar Kislay, Ms. Avni
Sharma, Ms. Ridhima Sharma, Ajay Sabharwal, Ms. Ashita Chawla,
Abhishek Singh, Nachiketa Joshi, Navanjay Mahapatra, T.S.Sabarish,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, Mrs. Niranjana Singh, Siddharth Singla,
Vishnu Shankar Jain, Ashish Madaan, Ms. Annaya Sahu, Parth
Yadav, Ms. Mani Munjal, Vishwa Pal Singh, Jamnesh Kumar, Parth
Shekhar, Ms. Ambali Vedasen, Shubham Singh, Ms. Monica Haseja,
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 747

Ram Nath v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Md Sontu Mia, Nikhil Kumar, Binod Kumar Singh, Himanshu Shekhar,
Advs. for the appearing Parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
Abhay S. Oka, J.
1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1379 of 2011.
2. The issue involved in these appeals is about the interplay between
the provisions of Chapter IX of the Food Safety and Standards Act,
2006 (for short, ‘the FSSA’) and Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’).
FACTUAL ASPECT
3. Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2012 takes exception to the order dated
5th October 2010 passed by a Division Bench of Allahabad High
Court. The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of the
prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 272 and 273
of the IPC. On 11th May 2010, the State of Uttar Pradesh issued an
order granting power to the authorities to initiate prosecutions under
Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC as well as under the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, ‘PFA’). On 28th August 2010,
a First Information Report (for short, ‘FIR’) was lodged by a food
inspector representing the Regional Food Controller, Agra, against
the petitioner alleging the commission of offences under Sections 272
and 273 of the IPC. The allegation was that, though the appellant
did not possess a licence to sell the commodity of mustard oil, he
continued to carry on the business of sale. Another allegation was
that the petitioner had adulterated the mustard oil, edible oil and
rice brine oil. The petitioner approached the High Court to quash
the FIR on various grounds. The appellant relied on Allahabad
High Court’s decision dated 8th September 2010, in the case of
M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. & Anr v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors1. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed
the petition filed by the appellant. Incidentally, the decision in the

1 2010 SCC OnLine All 1708
748 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

case of Pepsico India1 is the subject matter of challenge by the
State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 476-478 of 2012. In
this case, FIR was registered against the respondent on 11th August
2010, alleging the commission of offences under Sections 272 and
273 of the IPC. The allegation was of adulteration in the cold drinks
manufactured by the respondent. The view taken in the case of
Pepsico India1 was that, from 29th July 2010, when the FSSA came
into force, the provisions thereof would have an overriding effect over
the food-related laws, including Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC.
Further, it was held that the police have no authority or jurisdiction
to investigate a case under the FSSA.
4. Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2012 takes an exception to the order
dated 15th September 2010, wherein the High Court declined to
quash an offence punishable under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC.
In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1379 of 2011, the challenge is
to the order dated 3rd August 2010 of the Allahabad High Court by
which a petition under Section 482 of CrPC filed by the appellant
for quashing the FIR alleging commission of offences under Section
272 and 273 of the IPC was dismissed.
5. In Short, the controversy is whether the view taken in the case of
Pepsico India1, which is the subject matter of challenge in Criminal
Appeal No. 476-478 of 2012, is correct. In the said decision, it was
held that after coming into force of the FSSA with effect from 29th July
2010, it would have an overriding effect on other food-related laws,
including the PFA. Therefore, the High Court held that invocation
of Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC concerning food adulteration
pursuant to a Government order dated 11th May 2010 was bad in law.
SUBMISSIONS
6. Detailed submissions have been made on behalf of the State of
Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 476-478 of 2012. On behalf
of the State, reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in
the cases of Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India & Ors.2
and the State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed
Subhan & Ors.3 The submission is that there is no bar to the trial

2 (2014) 13 SCC 314
3 (2019) 18 SCC 145
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 749

Ram Nath v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

of an offender under two different enactments, but the bar is only
to the punishment of the offender twice for the same offence. The
learned counsel submitted that where an act or omission constitutes
an offence under two enactments, the offender may be prosecuted
under either one of the two enactments or both enactments but shall
not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. Reliance
was placed upon Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
(for short, ‘the GC Act’). Learned counsel for the State also relied
upon another decision of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v.
Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. and Ors.4 He submitted that the area
of operation of the IPC and a food-related law like the FSSA are
entirely different and, therefore, the same are mutually exclusive.
The learned counsel urged that Section 89 gives overriding effect
to the provisions of the FSSA over all other food-related laws, as
is evident from the title of the Section. He submitted that the IPC is
not a food-related law by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore,
wherever Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC are attracted even after
coming into force of the FSSA, the offender can be prosecuted under
the said IPC provisions.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the accused invited our attention
to the objects and reasons of the FSSA and its preamble. Their
submission is that the FSSA is very exhaustive legislation dealing
with all aspects of food, including adulteration, unsafe food, etc. Their
submission is that Section 89 will have an overriding effect over the
provisions of the IPC. Our attention is also invited to Section 5 and
Section 41 of the IPC. The submission is that in view of Section
5, any special law will remain unaffected by the provisions of the
IPC. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in the case of
Jeewan Kumar Raut & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation.5
The counsel for the accused also placed reliance on the decision of
this Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aman Mittal and
Anr6, in support of the proposition that the FSSA, being a special
law, will exclude the applicability of the IPC for the fields which are
covered by the provisions of the special Act.

4 [2003] Suppl. 2 SCR 727 : (2003) 7 SCC 389
5 [2009] 10 SCR 272 : (2009) 7 SCC 526
6 [2019] 11 SCR 1180 : (2019) 19 SCC 740
750 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
8. Different provisions of the FSSA were brought into force on different
dates by notifications issued from time to time. The last of such
notification is of 29th July 2010. All the provisions of the FSSA were
in force as on 29th July 2010 except Section 22. The offences subject
matter of these appeals were registered after 29th July 2010. We
have carefully considered the submissions made across the bar. The
statement of objects and reasons of the FSSA mentions explicitly that
the multiplicity of food laws creates confusion. The multiplicity of laws,
standard setting and various implementing/enforcement agencies are
detrimental to the growth of the nascent food processing industry. It
is further provided that the FSSA provides a single window to guide
and regulate the persons engaged in manufacturing, marketing,
processing, handling, transport, import and sale of goods. The
preamble of the FSSA records that it was an enactment to consolidate
the laws relating to food. It is a very comprehensive legislation on
all the aspects of food.
9. Clause (zz) of Section 3 of the FSSA defines unsafe food, which
reads thus:
“(zz) “unsafe food” means an article of food whose
nature, substance or quality is so affected as to render
it injurious to health:—
(i) by the article itself, or its package thereof, which is
composed, whether wholly or in part, of poisonous
or deleterious substances; or
(ii) by the article consisting, wholly or in part, of any
filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal
substance or vegetable substance; or
(iii) by virtue of its unhygienic processing or the presence
in that article of any harmful substance; or
(iv) by the substitution of any inferior or cheaper substance
whether wholly or in part; or
(v) by addition of a substance directly or as an
ingredient which is not permitted; or
(vi) by the abstraction, wholly or in part, of any of its
constituents; or
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 751

Ram Nath v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

(vii) by the article being so coloured, flavoured or coated,
powdered or polished, as to damage or conceal the
article or to make it appear better or of greater value
than it really is; or
(viii) by the presence of any colouring matter or
preservatives other than that specified in respect
thereof; or
(ix) by the article having been infected or infested with
worms, weevils, or insects; or
(x) by virtue of its being prepared, packed or kept under
insanitary conditions; or
(xi) by virtue of its being mis-branded or sub-standard
or food containing extraneous matter; or
(xii) by virtue of containing pesticides and other
contaminants in excess of quantities specified by
regulations.”
(Emphasis added)
Thus, 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.
10. The word sub-standard has been defined under clause (zx) of Section
3, which reads thus:
“(zx) “sub-standard”, an article of food shall be deemed to
be sub-standard if it does not meet the specified standards
but not so as to render the article of food unsafe;”
Therefore, sub-standard food cannot be unsafe food.
11. Another important definition is of adulterant under clause (a) of
Section 3, which reads thus:
“(a) “adulterant” means any material which is or could be
employed for making the food unsafe or sub-standard or
mis-branded or containing extraneous matter;”
Coming back to the definition of unsafe food, sub-clause (v) of Clause
(zz) of Section 3 provides that by adding a substance directly or as
752 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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.
12. The offences and penalties are contained in Chapter IX. Sub-Section
1 of Section 48 lays down how any article of food can be rendered
injurious to health. Sub-Section 1 of Section 48 reads thus:
“(1) A person may render any article of food injurious to
health by means of one or more of the following operations,
namely: —
(a) adding any article or substance to the food;
(b) using any article or substance as an ingredient
in the preparation of the food;
(c) abstracting any constituents from the food; or
(d) subjecting the food to any other process or
treatment,
with the knowledge that it may be sold or offered for sale
or distributed for human consumption.”
Thus, if a person knows that a particular article of food is being
offered for sale or distribution for human consumption and adds
any adulterant (article or substance) to the food, he renders the
food article injurious to health. In Chapter IX, Sections 49, 50, 51,
52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 deal with penalties. Sections 59 to
64 and 66 specifically deal with offences. Section 74 of Chapter X
empowers the Central Government or State Government to establish
Special Courts for the trial of offences relating to grievous injury or
death of the consumer for which the punishment of imprisonment
is more than 3 years.
13. In sub-Section 3 of Section 34, it is provided that the trial of any
offence under the FSSA by the Special Court shall have precedence
over the prosecution of any other case against the accused in any
other Court. In cases where offences are not triable by the Special
Court, under Section 73 of the FSSA, there is a power vesting in
the Courts of Judicial Magistrates to try the case summarily by
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 753

Ram Nath v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

following Sections 262 to 265 of the CrPC. Against any decision
or order of the Special Court, an appeal is provided to the High
Court under Section 76. The appeal lies before a bench consisting
of at least two Judges. Another salutary provision is Section 77,
which prohibits any Court from taking cognizance of the offence
under the FSSA after the expiry of a period of one year from the
date of the commission of the crime. However, the Commissioner
of Food Safety, for reasons recorded, can extend the period from
one year to three years. Section 79 of the FSSA overrides Section
29 of CrPC and provides that it shall be lawful for the Court of
ordinary jurisdiction to pass any sentence authorised under the
FSSA except a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding
six years in excess of its powers conferred by Section 29 of
CrPC. Section 78 provides that at any time during the trial of
any offence under the FSSA, when an offence has been alleged
to have been committed by any person not being the importer,
manufacturer, distributor or dealer, based on evidence adduced
before it, the Court has the power to proceed against the importer,
manufacturer, distributor or dealer. This provision explicitly gives
an overriding effect over the provision of sub-Section 3 of Section
319 of CrPC. Another salutary provision is Section 80, which lists
the defences that may or may not be allowed in the prosecution
under the FSSA. For example, it is provided that it is no defence
that the accused had a mistaken but reasonable belief as to the
facts that constituted the offence.
14. Therefore, as far as offences relating to food and food safety are
concerned, there are very exhaustive provisions made in the FSSA
dealing with all aspects of food and food security.
15. In the facts of these cases, the offence under Section 59 of the FSSA
is very relevant, which reads thus:
“59. Punishment for unsafe food.—Any person who,
whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf,
manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or
imports any article of food for human consumption which
is unsafe, shall be punishable,—
(i) where such failure or contravention does not result
in injury, with [imprisonment for a term which may
754 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

extend to three months and also with fine which
may extend to three lakh rupees];7
(ii) where such failure or contravention results in a non-
grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to one year and also with fine which may
extend to three lakh rupees;
(iii) where such failure or contravention results in a
grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to six years and also with fine which may
extend to five lakh rupees;
(iv) where such failure or contravention results in death,
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and also with fine which shall
not be less than ten lakh rupees.”
Any person, whether by himself or by any other person on his
behalf, manufactures or, stores or, sells or imports unsafe food
for human consumption, becomes guilty of an offence of dealing
with unsafe food. As can be noted, there are different punishments
provided, starting from imprisonment for 3 months and extending
to imprisonment for life and a fine, depending upon the extent and
nature of injury caused by unsafe food. The fine is in the range of
rupees three lakh to rupees ten lakh.
16. In these appeals, we are dealing only with Sections 272 and 273 of
the IPC. The same read thus:
“272. Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale.—
Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as
to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending
to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be
likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

7 Subs. for “imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with fine which may
extend to one lakh rupees” by Act 18 of 2023, S. 2 and Sch. (w.e.f. 8-11-2023).
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 755

Ram Nath v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

273. Sale of noxious food or drink.—Whoever sells, or
offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article
which has been rendered or has become noxious, or
is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having
reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or
drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to six months,
or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees,
or with both.”
17. Section 272 is an offence of adulteration of any article of food or
drink. The definition of food under Clause (a) of Section 3 of the
FSSA also includes a liquid. If adulteration of an article of food is
made which makes such articles noxious as food or drink, the person
who adulterates is guilty of an offence punishable under Section 272
of the IPC. It contemplates the accused adulterating food with the
intention to sell adulterated food. Thus, intention is an ingredient of the
offence. When by adulterating an article of food or liquid, it becomes
harmful or poisonous, it can be said that it becomes noxious. If, by
adulteration, an article of food becomes noxious, it becomes unsafe
food within the meaning of Section 3 (zz) of FSSA.
18. Section 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. However, knowledge is an essential
ingredient in sub-Section 1 of Section 48, and therefore, it will be a
part of Section 59 of the FSSA. The maximum punishment for the
offence under Section 272 of the IPC is imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months or with a fine. The substantive
sentence for the offence punishable under Section 273 is the
same, whereas, under Section 59, the punishment is of simple
756 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

imprisonment extending from three months to a life sentence with
a fine of rupees three lakh up to 10 lakhs.
19. Moreover, a limitation of one year is provided for the offence under
Section 59, which is extendable up to three years as provided in
Section 77 of the FSSA. By virtue of Section 468 of CrPC, the
limitation for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under
Sections 272 and 273 is one year. There is a power to extend time
under Section 473 of CrPC. The power is not limited to three years.
CONCLUSION
20. Thus, there are very exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions
in the FSSA for dealing with offences concerning unsafe food. In
this context, we must consider the effect of Section 89 of the FSSA.
Section 89 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 of virtue of any law other than
this Act.”
The 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. The settled law is
that if the main Section is unambiguous, the aid of the title of the
Section or its marginal note cannot be taken to interpret the same.
Only if it is ambiguous, the title of the section or the marginal note
can be looked into to understand the intention of the legislature.
Therefore, the main Section clearly gives 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.
In this case, we are concerned only with Sections 272 and 273
of the IPC. When the offences under Section 272 and 273 of
the IPC are made out, even the offence under Section 59 of the
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 757

Ram Nath v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

FSSA will be attracted. In fact, the offence under Section 59 of
the FSSA is more stringent.
21. The decision of this Court in the case of Swami Achyutanand Tirth2
does not deal with this contingency at all. In the case of the State
of Maharashtra3, the question of the effect of Section 97 of the
FSSA did not arise for consideration of this Court. The Court dealt
with simultaneous prosecutions and concluded that there could be
simultaneous prosecutions, but conviction and sentence can be only
in one. This proposition is based on what is incorporated in section
26 of the GC Act. We have no manner of doubt that by virtue of
Section 89 of the FSSA, Section 59 will override the provisions of
Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. Therefore, there will not be any
question of simultaneous prosecution under both the statutes.
22. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2012, Criminal Appeal No.479
of 2012 and Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1379 of
2011 succeed, and we set aside the impugned orders. The offences,
subject matter of these appeals, are hereby quashed and set aside
with liberty to the authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings
in accordance with the law if not already initiated. Therefore, the
concerned authorities are free to act in accordance with the FSSA
for offences punishable under Section 59 of the FSSA. Criminal
Appeal Nos. 476-478 of 2012 are dismissed.
23. No orders as to costs.

Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey Result of the case:
Criminal Appeal Nos. 472 of 2012, 479
of 2012 and Criminal Appeal arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1379 of 2011
allowed; Criminal Appeal Nos.
476-478 of 2012, dismissed.