Introduction

In the landmark case of Manik Hiru Jhangiani v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2023 INSC 1078), the Supreme Court of India addressed critical issues surrounding the repeal of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA) by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA). The appellant, Manik Hiru Jhangiani, a Director of M/s. Bharti Retail Limited, was prosecuted under the PFA for misbranding offences committed in 2010, after the PFA was slated for repeal in 2011. This case delved into the interplay between the old and new legislations, focusing on the applicability of penalties and the principle of double jeopardy.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court granted leave to hear the appeal and ultimately overturned the High Court's decision, which had dismissed the appellant's petition challenging the prosecution under the PFA. The apex court held that the FSSA, under Section 89, has an overriding effect over the PFA, thereby nullifying the prosecution under the repealed PFA for offences committed after the FSSA came into force. The court emphasized that imposing penalties under both statutes would contravene Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, which prohibits double jeopardy.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The appellant relied on several precedents to bolster his case:

• T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe & Anr.
• Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan
• Hindustan Unilever Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh

These cases primarily dealt with the interplay between old and new legislations and the application of overriding effect clauses. However, the Supreme Court distinguished the present case from the Hindustan Unilever case, noting that the latter did not involve an explicit conflict between PFA and FSSA penalties at the time of offence commission.

Legal Reasoning

The crux of the Court's reasoning hinged on Sections 89 and 97 of the FSSA:

• Section 89 of FSSA: Establishes that FSSA provisions override any inconsistent provisions in other laws, including the PFA.
• Section 97 of FSSA: Outlines the repeal of the PFA but includes a sunset clause (sub-section 4) permitting cognizance of offences under the PFA within three years from the commencement of FSSA.

The Court determined that since the misbranding offence occurred after the FSSA was in force, the provisions of the FSSA took precedence. Consequently, only the penalties under FSSA could be imposed, effectively barring prosecution under the PFA to prevent double jeopardy.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for the enforcement of food safety laws in India:

• Legal Clarity: Establishes clear supremacy of FSSA over PFA, ensuring a unified legal framework for food safety.
• Corporate Compliance: Companies must adhere strictly to FSSA provisions, as penalties under PFA may no longer apply post-repeal.
• Judicial Precedent: Guides lower courts in adjudicating similar cases where overlapping statutes exist, emphasizing the importance of overriding effect clauses.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 89 of FSSA

This section declares that in the event of any conflict between the FSSA and other food-related laws (like PFA), the provisions of the FSSA will prevail. This ensures that the newer legislation maintains authority over older laws.

Section 97 of FSSA

This section repeals the PFA but incorporates a sunset clause, allowing offences committed under the PFA to be prosecuted within three years from the commencement of the FSSA. Post this period, no prosecutions under the PFA are permissible.

Double Jeopardy

As per Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution, no person can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Applying both PFA and FSSA penalties for a single act of misbranding would violate this principle.

Misbranding

Misbranding refers to the act of labeling food products in a false or misleading manner. Both PFA and FSSA have provisions defining and penalizing misbranding, but the FSSA's definitions and penalties supersede those of the PFA where applicable.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Manik Hiru Jhangiani v. The State of Madhya Pradesh underscores the primacy of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 over the older Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. By reinforcing Section 89 of the FSSA, the Court has ensured a streamlined and coherent legal approach to food safety regulation in India. This judgment not only prevents the possibility of double jeopardy but also mandates that enforcement aligns with the most current legislative framework, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of food safety governance in the country.