TMI Blog1971 (2) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when the vinegar is being sold under a licence granted under the Fruit Products Order, 1955 (hereafter called the Fruit Order) made by the Central Government under s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The High Court has relying on an un- reported Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in State v. RaJ Kumar (Crl. A. 996 f 1961 decided on October 29, 1962) held that they cannot be prosecuted. It was argued in the High Court that the rules made under the Adulteration Act had come into force after the enforcement of the Fruit Order and vinegar being mentioned as an article of food in those rules, prosecution under both the provisions of law was permissible. Reliance in support of this argument was also placed on s. 26 of the General Clauses Act. This argument was not accepted and it was observed that the special provisions of the Fruit Order had overriding effect and, therefore, a manufacturer of Fruit Products could only be prosecuted under the provisions of the Fruit Order. Prayer for reference to a larger Bench for reconsideration of Raj Kumar's case (supra) did not find favour with the learned single Judge. In this Court the view taken in Raj Kumar's case (supra) was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the prosecution had arisen out of a raid dated October 17, 1960 at the promises of the accused when allegedly samples of vinegar were taken which are stated to be adulterated because of the presence of sulphuric acid . It was pleaded that-the petitioning accused had secured in 1960 a licence under the Fruit Order and vinegar whether brewed or synthetic being a food product and standard specification for such vinegar being tabulated in Part XIV attached to the Second Schedule of the Fruit Order, prosecution without the, previous sanction of the Licensing Officer as required by cl. 15 of the said Order was unauthorised. Prosecution under the Adulteration Act was on this ground pleaded to be incompetent. In the application reliance in support of this plea was placed on the unreported Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Raj Kumar's case in which according to the accused it had been held that a licensee under the Fruit Order could not be prosecuted for any contravention of that Order or of the Adulteration Act without the previous sanction of the Licensing Authority appointed under the Fruit Order. The trial magistrate basing himself on an unreported single Bench decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only when a consistent body of law cannot be maintained without abrogation of the previous law that the plea of implied repeal should be sustained. To determine if a later statutory provision repeals by implication an earlier one it is accordingly necessary to closely scrutinise and consider the true meaning and effect both of the earlier and the later statute. Until this is done it cannot be satisfactorily ascertained if any fatal inconsistency exists between them. The meaning, scope and effect of the two statutes, as discovered on scrutiny, determines the legislative intent as to whether the earlier law shall cease or shall only be supplemented. If the objects of the two statutory provisions are different and the language of each statute is restricted to its own objects or subject, then they are generally intended to run in parallel lines without meeting and there would be no real conflict though apparently it may appear to be so on the surface. Statutes in pari materia although in apparent conflict should also so far ,is reasonably possible, be construed to be in harmony with each other and it is only when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the new provision and the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecessary to reproduce all these sub-clauses. Pack- age has' been defined in cl. (X) to mean a box, bottle, casket, tin, barrel, case, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article of food is placed or packed . We have referred to the definitions of misbranded and package because one of the cases before us (Crl. A. 154 of 1966) is a case of alleged misbranding, the remaining seven cases being ,of alleged adulteration. Section 5 prohibits import of, inter alia, adulterated and misbranded food and all articles of food in contravention of any provision of the Act or of any rules made thereunder. Section 7 prohibits manufacture for sale or store and also sale and distribution of, inter alia, adulterated and misbranded food land of articles of food, in contravention of the Adulteration Act and the Rules made thereunder. Section 8 provides for appointment of Public Analysts and s. 9 for the appointment of Food Inspectors. The powers of Food Inspectors are contained in S. 10. He possesses very wide powers for the purpose of effectively achieving the statutory object of preventing the manufacture, sale and distribution etc., of adulterated articles of food. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dultera- tion Rules, 1955 (hereafter called the Adulteration.Rules). These rules were made by the Central Government under s. 4(2) and s. 23(1) of the Adulteration Act and were published in the Official Gazette as per notification dated September 12, 1955. The rules other than those contained in Part III- Appendix B-Item A.12 Margarine, Part VI and Part VII came into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette : the rules contained in Part III, Appendix B, Item A.12 Margarine came into force on June 1, 1956 and the rules contained in Part VI and Part VII came into force on December 1, 1956-: vide r. 1(3). Under S. 23(2) (prior to its amendment in 1964) all rules made under sub-s. (1) had to be laid as soon as possible before both Houses of Parliament. By Act 49 of 1964 sub-s. (2) was amended so as to provide for every rule made under sub-s. (1) to be laid before each House of Parliament while in session, for a total period of 30 days in order to afford an opportunity to the two Houses to study and to modify or annul it for, future if both Houses so agree. We have referred to this amendment as some of the rules were amended thereafter. The effect of the subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the object of continuing, during a limited period, powers to control the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, foodstuffs and certain other commodities. To empower the Indian Legislature to enact law on this subject matter the British Parliament had passed India (Central Government and Legislation) Act, 1946(9 and 10 Geo. Vl, c.39). The lndian Legislature not being in session the Ordinance was promulgated to meet the emergency and this was replaced by Act 26 of 1946. Reference has been made by us to this past history for the purpose of indicating the different objects and purposes intended to be achieved by the two legislative measures. Section 2 of the Essential Commodities Act which is the definition section defines in cl. (a) essential commodity to mean any of the classes of commodities stated in sub-cls. (i) to (xi). Sub-clause (v) refers to foodstuffs, including edible oil-seeds and oils and cl. (xi) confers power on the Central Government to declare by a notified order any other class of commodity to be an essential commodity for the purposes of the Act, being a commodity with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws by virtu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment of India and it includes any other Officer empowered in this behalf by him with the approval of the Central Government. Manufacturer as defined in sub-cl. (h) means a licensee engaged in the business of manufacturing in fruit products for sale and includes a person purchasing such fruit products in bulk and repacking them for sale either by himself or through someone else. Clause 4 prohibits all persons from carrying on business of manufacture except and in accordance with the terms of an effective licence granted to him under this Order in Form B . Clause 5 prescribes procedure for applications for the grant of a licence under cl. 4. Clause 7 enjoins the manufacturers to manufacture fruit products in conformity with the sanitary requirements and the appropriate standard of quality and composition specified in the Second Schedule to the Order and cl. 8 lays down the requirements to be complied with by the manufacturers in regard to the packing, marketing and labelling of containers, of fruit products. Clause 10 prohibits sale, exposure for sale, despatch or delivery to any agent or broker for the purpose of sale, any fruit products which do not conform to the stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the Adulteration Act even a purchaser may, without any such sanction, institute a prosecution merely by producing along with his complaint a certificate from the Public Analyst. He also drew our attention to s. 20-A of the Adulteration Act according to which, unlike the Fruit Order, the Court trying an offence under that Act is empowered to implead the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food, it is satisfied that he is also concerned with, that offence, and proceed against him as though the prosecution had been instituted-against him under s. 20. We do not think this section in any way reflects the legislative intention of implied repeal of the Adulteration Act by the Fruit Order. The two statutory provisions can operate within their respective spheres without giving rise to any absurdity or such grave inconvenience as would impel the court to sustain the plea of implied repeal., Incidentally it may also be pointed out that this section was added by Act 49 of 1964 which came into force on March 1, 1965 long after 1960 when the present cases were started. Shri Daphtary developed his argument by adding that if the respondents have manufactured for sale and have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was not drawn to any provision of the Adulteration Act and Rules, compliance with which would result in breach of any mandate, whether affirmative or negative, of the Fruit Order. We are, therefore, unable to find any cogent or convincing reason for holding that the Parliament intended by enacting the Essential Commodities Act or the Fruit Order to implidely repeal the provisions of the adulteration Act and the Rules in respect the statutes can function with full the provisions of the Adultera of the vinegar in dispute. Both vigour side by side in their own parallel channels. Even if they happen to some extent to overlap. s. 26 of the General Clauses Act fully protects the guilty parties against double jeopardy or double penalty. This section lays down that 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. If, therefore, the provisions of the Adulteration Act and those of Fruit Order happen to constitute offences covering the same acts or omissions then it would be, open to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dulteration Act and Rules can without difficulty fit into the scheme of the Fruit Order under the Essential Commodities Act. The challenge on the ground of implied repeal must, therefore, be rejected. Incidentally we may note that the view taken by the learned single Judge in this case was later overruled by a Full Bench of the 918 Sup. C.I./71 Delhi High Court in Municipal corporation v. Harnarain (Crl. A. No. 163 of 1967 decided in May, 1969). Shri Daphtary, as a last resort, tried to press into service Art. 14 in his challenge to the prosecution of the respondent. According to him the prosecuting authorities have an unguided licence to prosecute his clients under one or the other statute and since the penalty under the Adulteration Act is more severe than that under the Fruit Order the principle of equality before the law is violated As this point was not taken in any of the courts below we did not permit him to raise it in this Court. It would, however, be open to the respondent, if so advised, to raise this point in accordance with law in the court below, because the cases have not yet been finally disposed of. The competence of the prosecution having been challenged at an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
