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
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. T.S. Baliah v. T.S.Rengachari – (1969) 3 SCR 65. 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.State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan – (1988) 4 SCC 655 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
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.
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1195 OF 2018
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs SAYYED HASSAN SAYYED SUBHAN
Dated:SEPTEMBER 20, 2018.
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
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. T.S. Baliah v. T.S.Rengachari – (1969) 3 SCR 65. 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.State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan – (1988) 4 SCC 655 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
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.
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1195 OF 2018
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs SAYYED HASSAN SAYYED SUBHAN
Dated:SEPTEMBER 20, 2018.
Citation: 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 5367 (S.C.)
Print Page
