Supreme Court Upholds FSSA's Supremacy Over PFA in Misbranding Offenses

Introduction

The landmark judgment in Manik Hiru Jhangiani v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2023 INSC 1078) delivered by the Supreme Court of India on December 14, 2023, has significant implications for the regulatory framework governing food safety and misbranding offenses in India. This case revolves around the interpretation and interplay between the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA), particularly concerning penalties for misbranding offenses.

The appellant, Manik Hiru Jhangiani, served as a Director of M/s. Bharti Retail Limited, which operates retail outlets under the brand name 'Easy Day.' A Food Inspector, appointed under the now-repealed PFA, identified misbranding in biscuit packets sold at Bharti's Indore store, leading to legal proceedings against the appellant under the PFA.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court granted leave to hear the appeal and ultimately vacated the previous conviction under the PFA. The High Court had upheld the prosecution based on the PFA's provisions. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, emphasizing that the FSSA, which came into force before the alleged offense, supersedes the PFA due to the latter's repeal. The Court clarified that penalties under the FSSA take precedence over those under the PFA, thereby precluding the imposition of concurrent penalties for the same offense.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The appellant relied on several precedents, including:

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

Notably, the Hindustan Unilever case involved offenses committed before the FSSA's provisions conflicted with the PFA, hence not directly applicable to the present case where the FSSA was already in force.

Legal Reasoning

The core legal issue was the conflict between the PFA and the FSSA regarding penalties for misbranding. The FSSA, enacted to consolidate and modernize food safety laws in India, contains Section 89, which asserts its overriding effect over any other conflicting laws. In contrast, the PFA was repealed by Section 97 of the FSSA.

The appellant argued that after the FSSA's Section 89 came into effect, it should take precedence over the PFA, thereby limiting penalties to those specified in the FSSA (i.e., monetary fines) and excluding the possibility of imprisonment under the PFA. The Supreme Court agreed, highlighting that imposing both penalties under the PFA and FSSA would contravene Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, which safeguards against double jeopardy.

Furthermore, the Court interpreted Section 97(4) of the FSSA as allowing only a three-year window from the FSSA's commencement to prosecute offenses under the PFA. Given that the alleged offense occurred within this period, and under the overlapping provisions of the FSSA, the penalties under the FSSA should prevail.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for the regulatory landscape of food safety in India:

Clarity in Regulatory Authority: Establishes the FSSA as the primary legislation governing food safety and misbranding, thereby nullifying residual applicability of the PFA for new offenses.
Penalty Framework: Clarifies that post-FSSA enactment, penalties for misbranding will be confined to those enumerated in the FSSA, eliminating provisions for imprisonment under the repealed PFA.
Legal Certainty: Reduces legal ambiguities and potential conflicts between old and new laws, fostering a more streamlined enforcement mechanism.
Compliance Focus: Encourages businesses to adhere strictly to the FSSA's regulations to avoid penalties, enhancing overall food safety standards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Overriding Effect of FSSA (Section 89)

Section 89 of the FSSA states that its provisions will take precedence over any other conflicting laws related to food safety. This means that if there are discrepancies between the FSSA and older laws like the PFA, the FSSA will prevail.

2. Sunset Clause (Section 97(4))

The sunset clause provides a three-year period post the commencement of the FSSA during which offenses committed under the repealed PFA can still be prosecuted. After this period, the prohibition on taking cognizance of PFA offenses ceases to apply.

3. Double Jeopardy (Article 20(2))

This constitutional protection ensures that an individual cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offense. Imposing penalties under both PFA and FSSA for the same misbranding act would violate this principle.

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 erstwhile Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. By affirming the FSSA's overriding effect and clarifying the applicability of its penalties, the Court has provided much-needed clarity and coherence to India's food safety regulatory framework.

This judgment not only eliminates potential legal conflicts between overlapping statutes but also reinforces the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy. Consequently, businesses engaged in the manufacture and sale of food products must ensure strict compliance with the FSSA's provisions to avert legal repercussions.

In the broader legal context, this ruling reinforces the trend of legislative modernization and consolidation, promoting a more efficient and effective regulatory environment. As the FSSA continues to evolve, it is poised to play a central role in shaping food safety standards and enforcement mechanisms in India.