Early Times Report
Jammu, May 9: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed two long-pending food adulteration complaints against Tapan Milk Products and others, holding that criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 cannot continue where the alleged violations are covered by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal passed the judgment while allowing petition filed by Suresh Chand Garg, Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Tapan Milk Products, along with the company and its marketing concern. The petitions challenged complaints pending before the Special Judicial Mobile Magistrate (Excise), Jammu, as well as the cognizance orders issued by the trial court.
The complaints had alleged offences under Sections 7(i), 7(ii) and 7(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in respect of samples of “Deep Classic Mild Fat”, which were alleged to be adulterated and misbranded. The prosecution alleged that the product contained impermissible flavouring substances and an admixture of milk fat with hydrogenated and un-hydrogenated edible vegetable fats. It was also alleged that use of the words “Mild Fat” amounted to misbranding.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Rahul Pant with Advocate Dhruv Pant argued that the proceedings under the PFA Act were misconceived as the relevant provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 had already come into force when the alleged offence was committed. The State, represented by AAG Raman Sharma with Advocate Saliqa Sheikh, opposed the plea and submitted that prosecution under the old Act could continue.
Rejecting the State’s contention, the High Court held that the allegations relating to adulteration and admixture corresponded to “sub-standard food” under the FSSA, while the allegation of misbranding was covered by the provisions of the 2006 Act. The Court noted that Sections 51 and 52 of the FSSA provide penalties for sub-standard and misbranded food and had come into force before the alleged offence.
The Court further relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Manik Hiru Jhangiani vs State of M.P., wherein it was held that the FSSA, by virtue of Section 89, has overriding effect over inconsistent provisions of the PFA Act. The High Court observed that once the allegations fall within the ambit of the FSSA, prosecution under the old PFA Act is legally impermissible.
Justice Oswal also noted that the analyst’s report nowhere stated that the product was injurious to health. Holding that continuation of proceedings under the PFA Act could not be sustained, the Court quashed the complaints titled State Through Food Inspector vs Tapan Milk Products and others, along with all consequential orders passed by the trial court.
Consequently, both complaints were dismissed. (JNF) |
