FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court

"Effect of Section 89 is that if there is an inconsistency between the provisions of the PFA and the FSSA, the provisions of the FSSA will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the PFA," High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, in a significant ruling dated May 8, 2026, held that criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA) is legally impermissible for offenses committed after the corresponding provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) were brought into force.

A bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed that Section 89 of the FSSA grants the new legislation an overriding effect over all other food-related laws, ensuring that a violator cannot be punished under the harsher penal provisions of the repealed Act when the new law provides for different consequences.

The primary question before the court was whether the prosecution of the petitioners could be initiated and continued under the PFA Act, 1954, for offenses allegedly committed on December 1, 2010. The court was also called upon to determine if Section 89 of the FSSA overrides the PFA Act in instances where the FSSA provides monetary penalties for acts that previously attracted imprisonment under the 1954 statute.

Overriding Effect Of Section 89 FSSA

The court examined the statutory framework of the FSSA, noting that the Government of India had brought the complete Act into force via notification on July 29, 2010. The bench emphasized that Section 89 of the FSSA explicitly states that its provisions shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force.

Court Distinguishes Between Adulterated and Sub-Standard Food

While analyzing the allegations, the court noted that the "adulterated" product defined under Section 2(ia)(a) of the PFA Act corresponds to "sub-standard" food under Section 3(1)(zx) of the FSSA. The bench observed that the analyst’s report did not indicate that the product was "unsafe" or injurious to health, which is a critical distinction in the new legal regime.

Inconsistency In Penal Consequences

The court highlighted a significant inconsistency between the two enactments regarding punishments. While Section 16 of the PFA Act provided for mandatory imprisonment for misbranding or sub-standard quality, Sections 51 and 52 of the FSSA provide only for monetary penalties. The bench noted that imposing a sentence of imprisonment under the PFA for an act that attracts only a fine under the FSSA would create a legal conflict.

Reliance On Supreme Court Precedent

Justice Oswal placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Manik Hiru Jhangiani vs. State of M.P. (2023 INSC 1078). In that case, the Apex Court held that if a penal action can be taken under both statutes, the FSSA must prevail due to the overriding mandate of Section 89. The Supreme Court had further clarified that punishing a violator under the PFA when the FSSA governs the field would amount to a violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

"The violator who indulges in misbranding cannot be punished under the PFA and he will be liable to pay penalty under the FSSA in accordance with Section 52 thereof."

Prosecution Under Repealed Act Held Misconceived

Rejecting the State’s contention that the PFA Act was only formally repealed in August 2011, the High Court held that the notification of penalty provisions under the FSSA in 2010 was sufficient to trigger the overriding effect. The bench concluded that since the allegations fell within the ambit of Sections 51 and 52 of the FSSA, the invocation of the PFA Act was legally impermissible and misconceived.

The High Court allowed both petitions and quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court. The bench ruled that the orders taking cognizance were unsustainable in law, and consequently, the complaints against the petitioners and the distributors stood dismissed.

Date of Decision: May 08, 2026