The discussion centers on the overriding effect of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act), over other laws, particularly the CrPC, regarding the limitation period for prosecuting offenses. According to Section 77 of the FSS Act, prosecutions for violations under the Act can proceed even after the standard one-year limitation, provided the Commissioner of Food Safety approves an extension, as was done in this case. Section 89 of the Act explicitly states that the FSS Act supersedes all other laws, including the CrPC. Judicial interpretation, as highlighted in Ram Nath’s Case, further confirms that this overriding effect is not limited to food-specific legislation but also extends to general Procedural laws. This ensures that the FSS Act’s provisions on food safety and public health take precedence in matters of prosecution and legal accountability.
Case Discussion
The case arises from collecting a milk sample by the Food Safety Officer on November 24, 2017, from the applicant’s premises in M/S Kewal Dairy vs. the State of UP [Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:177238]. The sample was then sent to the Food Analyst at the Regional Food Laboratory, Medical College Campus, Meerut, for analysis. Subsequently, the Food Analyst’s report, received on December 10, 2017, indicated that the milk was sub-standard. India’s Allahabad High Court ruled that under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act 2006), an offense is deemed to occur when the food analyst’s report confirming the violation is received, not when the Food Safety Officer collects the food sample. This interpretation emphasizes the evidentiary role of the food analyst’s report in establishing the offense under the Act.
The ruling establishes clarity regarding the timeline for initiating legal proceedings under the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006. According to the Act, Section 77 specifies that courts cannot take cognizance of an offense under the Act after one year from the offense date unless the Commissioner of Food Safety provides recorded reasons to extend this period, which can go up to three years. This provision supersedes the general limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the CrPC, as Section 89 of the Food Safety Act explicitly states that its provisions override conflicting provisions in other laws.
Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Rajasthan v. Sanjay Kumar and Others (1998) 5 SCC 82, interpreted Section 469 of the CrPC regarding the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, ruled that the date of commission of the offense is considered to be the date on which the Government Analyst’s report is received. This principle is relevant under the Food Safety Act, reinforcing that the timeline for initiating action begins upon the receipt of the analyst’s report confirming the violation.
The ruling establishes clarity regarding the timeline for initiating legal proceedings under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006. According to the Act, Section 77 specifies that courts cannot take cognizance of an offense under the Act after one year from the date of the offense, unless the Commissioner of Food Safety provides recorded reasons to extend this. period, which can go up to three years. This special provision supersedes the general limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the CrPC, as Section 89 of the Food Safety Act explicitly states that its provisions override conflicting provisions in other laws.
Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Rajasthan v. Sanjay Kumar and Others (1998) 5 SCC 82, while interpreting Section 469 of the CrPC about the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, ruled that the date of commission of the offense is considered to be the date on which the Government Analyst’s report is received. This principle is relevant under the Food Safety Act, reinforcing that the timeline for initiating action begins upon receiving the analyst’s report confirming the violation.
The contention that Section 468 of the CrPC bars cognizance of an offense punishable with one year under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act), due to the limitation period is incorrect. Section 77 of the FSS Act specifically allows for the prosecution to proceed even after one year, provided the Commissioner of Food Safety approves the extension. In this case, the Commissioner approved the extension through an order dated June 20, 2019.
The special provision under Section 77, which allows for an extension of the limitation period, takes precedence over the general limitation rules in Section 468 of the CrPC due to the overriding clause in Section 89 of the FSS Act. Section 89 clearly states that the provisions of the FSS Act will override all other laws, including the CrPC.
Additionally, as observed in the judgment of Ram Nath’s Case, the FSS Act’s overriding effect is not limited to food-related laws. Still, it extends to all other laws, including procedural ones like the CrPC. This reinforces the FSS Act’s legal precedence in matters of food safety regulation and prosecution.
Add Comment