Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1195   OF 2018 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4475 of 2016]

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. .... Appellants

Versus

SAYYED HASSAN SAYYED  SUBHAN & ORS.      ….Respondents

W I T H

Criminal Appeal No.1196   of 2018  (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4486/2016)  

Criminal Appeal No.1197    of 2018  (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4491/2016)

Criminal Appeal No. 1198   of 2018  (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4484/2016)

Criminal Appeal No.1199   of 2018  (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4478/2016)  

Criminal Appeal No.1200  of 2018  (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4499/2016)  

Criminal Appeal No.1201    of 2018  (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4472/2016)  

Criminal Appeal No.1202   of 2018  (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4513/2016)

Criminal Appeal No.1203   of 2018  (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4498/2016)

 Criminal Appeal No.1204   of 2018

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4502/2016)

Criminal Appeal No.1205   of 2018  (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4507/2016)

1

Criminal Appeal No.1206  of 2018  (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4521/2016)

Criminal Appeal No.1207   of 2018  (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4494/2016)

O   R   D   E   R  

Leave granted.    

1. First  Information  Reports  (FIRs)  were  registered  for

transportation and sale  of  Gutka/Pan Masala for  offences

punishable  under  Sections  26  and  30  of  the  Food  and

Safety Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the

‘FSS Act’) and Sections 188, 272, 273 and 328 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’).  The

Respondents  in  the  above  appeals  filed  Criminal  Writ

Petitions  and  Criminal  Applications  in  the  High  Court  of

Bombay for quashing the FIRs.  The High Court quashed the

criminal proceedings against the Respondents and declared

that  the  Food  Safety  Officers  can  proceed  against  the

Respondents under the provisions of Chapter X of the FSS

Act.  Aggrieved thereby, the State of Maharashtra is before

us.    

2

2. The  High  Court  framed  two  questions  for

consideration.  They are:

i. Whether  the  Food  Safety  Officers  can  lodge complaints for offences punishable under the IPC?

ii. Whether  the  acts  complained  amounted  to  any offence  punishable  under  the  provisions  of  the IPC?

3. A  notification  was  issued  on  18.07.2013  by  the

Commissioner,  Food  Safety  and  Drugs  Administration,

Government of Maharashtra under Section 30 of the FSS

Act prohibiting manufacture, storage, distribution or sale of

tobacco,  Areca  nut,  which  is  either  flavored,  scented  or

mixed with any of the said addictives and whether going by

the name or form of gutka, pan masala, flavored, scented

tobacco,  flavored/scented  supari,  kharra  or  otherwise  by

whatsoever name called, whether packaged or unpackaged

and/or  sold  as  one  product,  or  though  packaged  as

separate products, sold or distributed in such a manner so

as to easily facilitate mixing by the consumer.      

4. Crimes were registered pursuant to complaints filed by

the Food Safety Officers for violation of the said notification

dated 18.07.2013 against the Respondents who were either

transporting, stocking and/or selling the prohibited goods.   

3

5. The High Court examined Section 55 of the FSS Act

which  provides  for  penalty  for  non  compliance  of  the

directions  of  the  Food  Safety  Officers.   As  per  the  said

provision the failure to comply with the requirements of the

Act or the Rules or Regulations would result in a penalty

which may extend to        Rs.2 lakhs.  The High Court

observed  that  non  compliance  of  the  notification  dated

18.07.2013  can  be  penalized  only  by  imposing  of  fine

mentioned in Section 55 and not otherwise.   No complaint

for offences under the IPC could have been preferred by the

Food  Safety  Officer  for  violation  of  the  prohibitory  order

issued  by  the  Commissioner  of  Food  Safety.    The

allegations  against  the  Respondents  do  not  have  the

tendency to cause breach of law and order, according to

the High Court.  The High Court found that the notification

issued by  the  Commissioner  dated 18.07.2013 is  not  an

order contemplated under Chapter X of the IPC.  The High

Court  was of  the opinion that  Section 55 of  the FSS Act

being  a  specific  provision  made in  a  special  enactment,

Section 188 of the IPC is not applicable.  The High Court

concluded  on  the  first  point  that  any  violation  of  the

prohibitory order can be dealt with only under Section 55 of

4

the FSS Act and no other action can be initiated against the

Respondents.   

6. There  is  no  dispute  that  Section  55 of  the  FSS Act

provides for penalty to be imposed for non compliance of

the requirements of the Act, Rules or Regulations or orders

issued thereunder by the Food Safety Officer.  But, we are

afraid that we cannot agree with the conclusion of the High

Court  that  non  compliance  of  the  provisions  of  the  Act,

Rules or Regulations or orders cannot be subject matter of

a  prosecution  under  IPC  unless  expressly  or  impliedly

barred.   The High Court is clearly wrong in holding that

action  can  be  initiated  against  defaulters  only  under

Section 55 of FSS Act or proceedings under Section 68 for

adjudication  have  to  be  taken.    A  further  error  was

committed by the High Court in interpreting the scope of

Section 188 of the IPC.  Section 188 of the IPC does not

only  cover  breach of  law and order,  the disobedience of

which is punishable.  Section 188 is attracted even in cases

where  the  act  complained  of  causes  or  tends  to  cause

danger to human life, health or safety as well.   We do not

agree with the High Court that the prohibitory order of the

Commissioner,  Food  and  Safety  is  not  an  order

5

contemplated under Chapter X of the IPC.   We are also not

in a position to accept the findings of the High Court that

Section 55 of the FSS Act is the only provision which can be

resorted to for non compliance of orders passed under the

Act as it is a special enactment.     

7. There is no bar to a trial or conviction of an offender

under two different enactments, but the bar is only to the

punishment of the offender twice for the offence.  Where an

act  or  an  omission  constitutes  an  offence  under  two

enactments, the offender may be prosecuted and punished

under either or both enactments but shall not be liable to

be punished twice for the same offence.1.      The same set

of  facts,  in  conceivable  cases,  can  constitute  offences

under  two  different  laws.   An  act  or  an  omission  can

amount to and constitute an offence under the IPC and at

the same time, an offence under any other law.2   The High

Court ought to have taken note of Section 26 of the General

Clauses Act, 1897 which reads as follows:

“Provisions as to offences punishable under two or more enactments –  Where an act  or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or  any of

1  T.S. Baliah v. T.S.Rengachari – (1969) 3 SCR 65 2  State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan – (1988) 4 SCC 655

6

those enactments,  but  shall  not  be  liable  to  be punished twice for the same offence.”

8. In Hat Singh’s3 case this Court discussed the doctrine

of double jeopardy and Section 26 of the General Clauses

Act to observe that prosecution under two different Acts is

permissible if the ingredients of the provisions are satisfied

on the same facts.  While considering a dispute about the

prosecution of the Respondent therein for offences under

the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act

1957 and Indian Penal Code, this Court in  State (NCT of

Delhi) v.  Sanjay4 held that there is no bar in prosecuting

persons  under  the  Penal  Code  where  the  offences

committed by persons are penal and cognizable offences. A

perusal of the provisions of the FSS Act would make it clear

that there is no bar for prosecution under the IPC merely

because the provisions in the FSS Act prescribe penalties.

We, therefore, set aside the finding of the High Court on the

first point.     

9. Regarding  the  second  point  as  to  whether  offences

under Section 188, 272, 273 and 328 have been made out

against  the  Respondents,  we  have  considered  the

3  State of Rajasthan v. Hat Singh (2003) 2 SCC 152 4 (2014) 9 SCC 772

7

submissions  made  by  the  learned  Additional  Solicitor

General  for  the  State  of  Maharashtra  and  the  learned

Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the  Respondents.   Without

going into details  of  the submissions made, we find that

points  that  were not  argued before the High Court  were

raised by both sides.   We suggested to the parties that the

matters have to be considered afresh by the High Court by

permitting both sides to raise all  contentions which were

canvassed before us.   There was no serious objection by

both sides to the remand of the matters back to the High

Court.   The  only  request  made  by  the  learned  Senior

Counsel  for  the  Respondents  is  that  no  coercive  action

should  be  taken  against  the  Respondents  during  the

pendency  of  Criminal  Writ  Petitions  and  the  Criminal

Applications before the High Court.  

10. We remand the matters to the High Court to consider

the Criminal Writ Petitions and Criminal Applications afresh

in respect of the second point framed i.e. whether offences

under Section 188, 272, 273 and 328 of the IPC are made

out in the FIRs which are the subject matter of the cases.

No coercive action be taken against the Respondents till the

8

disposal  of  the  Criminal  Writ  Petitions  and  the  Criminal

Applications by the High Court.  

 11. With  the  aforesaid  observations,  the  appeals  are

disposed of.       

                        ................................J

                                       [ S.A. BOBDE ]

..................................J [ L. NAGESWARA RAO ]

NEW DELHI;  SEPTEMBER 20, 2018.

9