Section 2(ix)(k) PFA Act | Prosecutions Under Repealed PFA Act Must Be Quashed Post-FSS Act, 2006 : Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has decisively held that continuing criminal prosecutions under the repealed Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for minor technical violations like misbranding constitutes an abuse of process, especially after the enactment of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The judgment underscores that judicial resources must not be wasted on obsolete enforcement mechanisms when civil adjudication now governs such matters.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., a food manufacturing company, faced multiple criminal complaints filed between 2005 and 2010 by the Food Inspector, Unnao, alleging misbranding of its product "Pepsi Sweetened Carbonated Water" under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act) and Rules of 1955. The core allegation was that the month and year of packing were not declared on the glass bottles, violating Rule 32(f) and Section 7(ii) of the PFA Act, punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i).

Key Facts

• The sampled product, a 200ml glass bottle of Pepsi Sweetened Carbonated Water, was collected in 2003 and 2009.
• The Public Analyst’s report dated 19.07.2003 found the product misbranded due to absence of month/year of packing declaration.
• The bottles were returnable and refillable; labels could not be affixed directly due to physical constraints.
• The Fifth Proviso to Rule 32 of the Rules of 1955, which permitted declaration of manufacturing and best-before dates on the bottle body, came into force on 01.10.2003 - after the sampling in 2003.
• Sanction for prosecution was granted by the Local Health Authority/Chief Medical Officer, Unnao.
• The PFA Act was repealed w.e.f. 05.08.2011 and replaced by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act).
• Under the FSS Act, misbranding is not a criminal offence; it attracts civil penalties up to Rs. 3.00 lakhs via adjudication proceedings.
• The criminal cases have remained pending since 2005, with no trial commenced even after 20 years.

Procedural History

• 19.07.2003: Public Analyst report issued, finding misbranding.
• 2005: First set of criminal complaints filed (Criminal Case Nos. 392, 394, 399, 402, 412 of 2005).
• 15.01.2010: Complaint filed in Criminal Case No. 168 of 2010.
• 05.08.2011: PFA Act repealed and replaced by FSS Act, 2006.
• 02.08.2016: FSSAI issued Notification No. F.No.P.15017/84/2015-FSSAI/Legal advising withdrawal of pending PFA cases involving minor violations.
• 2014 - 2019: Multiple applications filed before the Allahabad HC seeking quashing; one was dismissed in 2019.
• 2018: Present batch of Section 482 CrPC applications filed.
• 14.05.2026: Arguments concluded.
• 27.05.2026: Judgment pronounced.

The Parties' Positions

The applicant, M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., contended that:

• The PFA Act is repealed and the FSS Act provides a civil regime for misbranding.
• The Public Analyst’s report was erroneous as it applied Rule 32 provisions that were not in force at the time of sampling.
• The right to re-analyze the sample under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act was vitiated due to excessive delay.
• Continuing prosecution after 20 years, with no trial commenced, is an abuse of process.
• The FSSAI’s 2016 circular explicitly directed withdrawal of such cases.

The State, represented by the Government Advocate, argued that:

• The Public Analyst’s report established a clear violation of Rule 32 and Section 7(ii).
• Sanction was duly obtained and summons issued; no procedural illegality exists.
• The mere repeal of the PFA Act does not automatically quash pending proceedings.
• The accused must be held accountable for violations committed at the time.

Relief Sought

The applicant sought quashing of all seven criminal cases pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao, and all consequential proceedings, including summonses and chargesheets, on grounds of abuse of process, repeal of law, and prolonged inaction.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether criminal proceedings under the repealed Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for minor technical violations like misbranding, can continue after the enactment of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, particularly when the FSSAI has directed withdrawal of such cases and no trial has commenced after more than two decades.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant/Petitioner

The applicant relied on the FSSAI’s 02.08.2016 circular, which explicitly advised State Commissioners to withdraw pending PFA cases involving non-serious violations unless they contravene current FSS standards. Counsel cited Jaleel P. v. State of Kerala, M/s. Bhole Baba Industries v. State of Rajasthan, and Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh to establish that courts have consistently quashed such stale proceedings. The applicant emphasized that the PFA Act’s criminal regime was replaced by a civil penalty framework under the FSS Act, making continued prosecution anachronistic. It was further argued that the delay of over 20 years, coupled with the absence of any allegation of health hazard or fraud, rendered the proceedings oppressive and violative of Article 21. The applicant also invoked Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan, where the Supreme Court held that beneficial amendments to criminal law must be applied even to pending cases.

For the Respondent/State

The State contended that the violation was established by the Public Analyst’s report and that the prosecution was initiated with proper sanction. It argued that repeal of a statute does not automatically extinguish pending criminal proceedings unless expressly provided. The State maintained that the accused had not been prejudiced by delay and that the courts must uphold the rule of law by allowing prosecution for violations committed under a valid law at the time.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a comprehensive review of the legal transition from the PFA Act to the FSS Act, 2006. It noted that the FSS Act was enacted to create a unified, science-based food safety regime, replacing the fragmented and punitive approach of the PFA Act. The Court emphasized that under the FSS Act, misbranding is no longer a criminal offence but a civil violation subject to adjudication and monetary penalties.

"Engaging of State machinery in pursuing such cases not only diverts the scarce resources of the government but also burdens the judicial system."

The Court relied heavily on the FSSAI’s 02.08.2016 circular, which it held was not merely advisory but a policy directive reflecting legislative intent. The circular explicitly recognized that pursuing minor technical violations under the repealed PFA Act was wasteful and counterproductive to the objectives of the new regime.

The Court also examined the delay of over 20 years in initiating trial. It observed that the right to re-analyze the sample under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act had been rendered meaningless by the passage of time, as the product’s shelf life had long expired. The Court cited Bhole Baba Industries and Pepsico Himachal Pradesh to affirm that prolonged inaction in minor cases amounts to abuse of process.

The Court further held that the Public Analyst’s report was flawed in applying Rule 32 provisions that came into force only on 01.10.2003, while the sample was collected in 2003 - before the amendment’s effective date. This rendered the basis of prosecution legally untenable.

The Court concluded that the continuation of these proceedings served no public interest, caused undue harassment to a corporate entity, and contradicted the legislative shift toward a regulatory, not punitive, approach to food safety.

The Verdict

The applicant succeeded. The Court quashed all seven criminal cases pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Unnao - namely Criminal Case Nos. 399 of 2005, 392 of 2005, 672 of 2005, 402 of 2005, 168 of 2010, 394 of 2005, and 412 of 2005 - along with all consequential proceedings, including summonses and chargesheets. The Court held that the prosecution under the repealed PFA Act for misbranding, after 20 years of inaction and in light of the FSS Act, 2006, constitutes an abuse of process and is therefore unsustainable.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Prosecutions Under Repealed Laws Must Be Withdrawn

• Practitioners must move to quash any pending PFA Act cases filed after 05.08.2011 for violations now governed by the FSS Act, 2006.
• The FSSAI’s 2016 circular is binding on State authorities and courts; non-compliance amounts to disregard of statutory policy.
• Cases involving misbranding, labelling, or packaging without evidence of health risk are prima facie candidates for quashing.

Delay Renders Prosecution Oppressive

• Criminal proceedings pending for over 15 - 20 years without trial are now presumptively abusive under Article 21.
• The burden shifts to the State to justify why a case should proceed when the underlying law has been replaced and the product is no longer available for re-testing.
• Courts will not permit the use of criminal law to enforce obsolete technical norms.

Civil Remedies Supersede Criminal Prosecution

• Any violation of food labelling norms post-2011 must be addressed under the FSS Act’s adjudication mechanism, not criminal prosecution.
• Legal notices under the FSS Act now carry penalties up to Rs. 3.00 lakhs - a proportionate and non-punitive alternative.
• Lawyers representing food businesses should immediately file Section 482 CrPC applications in all pending PFA cases, citing this judgment and the FSSAI circular.