CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

Topic:

“Analysis of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955”

Submitted by: Under the Supervision of:

Shivam Saket Dr. Ajay Kr Barnwal

CUSB1513125043 Assistant Professor

(B.A.LLB., 9th SEM.) SLG, CUSB

1|Page
 CONTENT

SR. TITLE PAGE

NO. NO.
1. Introduction 4
2. Meaning of adulteration 5-7
3. Central committee for food standards and central food laboratory 8-9
4. Machinery for inspection analysis of food 9-11
5. Procedure to be followed by food inspector 11-12
6. Purchaser’s right to have food analyzed 13-14
7. Penalties 14-16
8. Cognizance and trial of offences 16-17
9. Conclusion 18

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

An enterprise of such a magnitude as this research on the topic “Analysis of the Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act, 1955” could only fructify in such a short span of time due to the
coalescing of able guidance and support of many learned and able persons, whose efforts and
cooperation, I as the researcher, with a sense of gratitude, being duty bound too,
acknowledge in no particular order. My deepest gratitude and thanks to the Hon’ble Prof. Dr
Ram Chandra Oraon, Assistant Professor, Central University of South Bihar, an eminent
professor and scholar gave enough time and space for free exchange of ideas and, opinions
greatly benefiting me in augmentation and critiquing of many of the opinions which find
their place in this work.

Despite the busy schedule and onerous academic responsibilities, she gave me ample time
whenever he was approached for his invaluable guidance. I am highly indebted to the library
staff to help me find the relevant books and journals, and other officials and office staffs,
who have also extended their help whenever needed. I would like to extend my sincere
thanks to all of my friends for their review and honest remarks. Last, but not the least my
eternal gratitude is due, to my loving Parents whose constant unflinching support, blessings
and encouragement both, temporal and emotional support, to meet any challenge with
confidence including, of this purposive academic exercise.

3|Page
INTRODUCTION

INDIA has been called the land of Annapurna. Food and water are not only the elixir of life, but
they are worshipped as gods. But the evil of food adulteration -a kind of white collar criminality
is prevalent in our society since long despite. India being a social welfare state especially after
independence, During festivities we find no dearth of news reports on the television and the local
newspapers on how the adulteration goes on due to greedy lot of sweets and variety of other
edible items/products by the businessmen. Especially during festivals the news channels got
activated for educating and informing the public, as if these are the only occasions when such a
malpractice is on. But, the reality is that we hardly consume food on any day, which can be
considered pure and unadulterated. The food items and the ingredients that we use to prepare
food contain adulterants.

The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred as the "Act") is concerned
with eradicating the evil of food adulteration which is rampant in the present times. The Act
prohibits adulteration and misbranding of food stuff and prescribes punishment for food
adulterators. To some extent, it regulates consumer-supplier relations. It tries to ensure that the
food is prepared, packed and stored under sanitary conditions and accordingly made available to
the people. It gives a comprehensive definition of the term "adulteration" because of which the
adulterators find it difficult to escape from the offence on technical grounds. The Act, inter alia,
provides for the establishment of a Central Food Laboratory to which food samples could be
referred for analysis and final opinion in disputed cases. The Act further provides for the
constitution of a central committee for food standards and has vested the central government
with powers regarding setting up of standards of quality for the articles of food and other related
matters.

4|Page
 MEANING OF ADULTERATION

Adulteration implies mixing of something inferior or spurious to any commodity which reduces
its purity or makes it harmful for use. Any material which is or could be employed for the
purposes of adulteration is called adulterant.1 If an article of food is not of the quality demanded
by the purchaser and is not of the quality which it purports or represents, it can be said to be
adulterated.2 Under section 2 (i) (a) of the Act, an article of food can be said to be adulterated if:

I. It contains any other substance which affects, or is so processed as to affect injuriously

the nature, substance or quality thereof; or
II. Any inferior or cheaper substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article so
as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof; or
III. Any constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted so as to affect
injuriously the nature, substances or quality thereof; or
IV. The article had been prepared, packed or kept under insanitary conditions whereby it has
become contaminated or injurious to health; or
V. The article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or diseased
animal or vegetable substance or is insect infested or is otherwise unfit for human
consumption;
VI. The article is obtained from a diseased animal; or
VII. The article contains any poisonous or other ingredient which renders it injurious to
health; or
VIII. The container of the article is composed, whether wholly or in part, of any poisonous or
deleterious substance which renders its contents injurious to health; or.
IX. Any colouring matter other than that prescribed in respect thereof is present in the article,
or if the amounts of the prescribed colouring matter which is present in the article are not
within the prescribed limits of variability; or
X. The article contains any prohibited preservative or permitted preservative in excess of the
prescribed limits; or

In Northan Mai v. State of Rajasthan,3 the food inspector purchased from the appellant some
chili powder for analysis in accordance with the Act to check adulteration and sent its sample for
analysis. According to the public analyst, ash was found mixed with the sample obtained from
the appellant and its concentration was 8.38 per cent by weight. However, there could be a
possibility of some error in the analysis. In this case the appellant was convicted by the lower
court but the apex court held that the adulteration found in the sample was marginal and there

1
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, sec. 2(i).
2
Id., sec. 2(ii) (a).
3
1995 Cri.LJ. 2661

5|Page
being possibility of error in analysis also, it would be unsafe to uphold the conviction of the
appellant. The court also took note of the fact that the case was very old. However, in
Gaurangaich v. State of Assam,4 a mere addition of salt to chili powder has been held to make it
injurious to health and it was considered adulterated on the ground that the quantity and purity of
the article had fallen below the prescribed standard.

In State of Rajasthan v. Ladu Ram,5the respondent selling milk without a valid license was not
convicted on the ground that cogent reasons were recorded by the magistrate for his acquittal.

In Maya Prakash v. State of U.P. and Another6, the chemical examiner, confirmed that the
sample of ghee was deficient in the prescribed limit of Vitamin A and the petitioner was
convicted and sentenced. He got acquitted on revision on the ground that the sample was not
substandard. Similar prosecution lapses had been traced by courts in Subhash Chander v. State
of Punjab,7 BalKrishan v. State of Rajasthan,8 Dilip Singh v. State of Rajasthan9,
Shamhhubhai Sankabhi v. Chandrakant Devshankar and another10, Kishan Lai v. State of
Rajasthan,11 Khitaiv. State of M.P12 and P. Unnikrishan v. Food Inspector, Palghat
Municipality, Palghat.13

For the purposes of the Act, the term "food" has been given very wide meaning. It connotes any
article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water. It also includes
any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of human
food, any flavoring matter or condiments, and any other article declared as such by central
government.14 The central government is authorized to declare an article as food within the
meaning of the Act.

The Act also deals with misbranded food items. Under the Act an article of food can be declared
as 'misbranded' if:15

4
1990(2) FAC41.
5
2002 Cri LJ 426 (Raj).
6
1998 All LJ 1163.
7
1997 Cri LJ 563 (Pun).
8
1997 RLW (2) 1082.
9
1997 RLW (2) 1756.
10
1996 Cri LJ 1350 (Guj).
11
2001 Cri LJ 3617 (Raj).
12
1995 Cri LJ 3244 (MP).
13
1995 Cri LJ 3638.
14
Supra note 1, sec. 2(v).
15
Id., sec. 2 (i x).

6|Page
 a) It is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, or resembles in a manner likely to deceive,
another article of food under the name of which it is sold, and is not plainly and
conspicuously labeled so as to indicate its true character; or
b) It is falsely stated to be the product of any place or country; or
c) It is sold by a name which belongs to another article of food; or
d) It is so coloured, flavoured or coated, powdered or polished that the fact that the article is
damaged is concealed or if the article is made to appear better or of greater value than it
really is; or
e) False claims are made for it upon the label or otherwise; or
f) It is sold in packages which have been sealed or prepared by or at the instance of the
manufacturer or producer and which bear his name and address, the contents of each
package are not conspicuously and correctly stated on the outside thereof within the
limits of variability prescribed under this Act; or
g) The package containing it, or the label on the package bears any statement, design or
device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which is false or
misleading in any material particular; or the package is otherwise deceptive with respect
to its contents; or
h) The package containing it or the label on the package bears the name of a fictitious
individual or company as the manufacturer or producer of the article;
i) It purports to be, or is represented as being for special dietary uses, unless its label bears
such information as may be prescribed concerning its vitamin, mineral, or other dietary
properties in order sufficiently to inform its purchaser as to its value for such uses; or
j) It contains any artificial flavouring, artificial colouring or chemical preservative, without
a declaratory label stating that fact, or in contravention of the requirements of this Act or
rules made there under; or
k) It is not labeled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or rules made there
under.

Any article of food, being a producer of agriculture or horticulture in its natural form means
primary food.16 For the purpose of determining liability under the Act, the term "sale" has been
defined to mean the sale of any article of food, whether for cash or on credit or by way of
exchange and whether by wholesale or retail, for human consumption or use, or for analysis, and
includes an agreement for sale, an offer for sale, the exposing for sale or having in possession for
sale of any such article, and includes also an attempt to sell any such article.17 In V.G.K. Menon
v. State of Kerala,18 it has been held that supply of sample and payment of its cost cannot
amount to sale for the purpose of the Act.

16
Id., sec. 2 (xii) (a).
17
Id., sec. 2 (xiii).
18
1998 (l)KLT 981.

7|Page
CENTRAL COMMITTEE FOR FOOD STANDARDS AND CENTRAL
FOOD LABORATRY

Under the Act the central government is empowered to constitute a committee called the Central
Committee for Food Standards to advise the central and state governments on matters arising out
of the administration of this Act and to carry out the other related functions.19 The following
have been prescribed to be its members:20
(a) The Director-General, Health Services, (ex-officio member and chairman);
(b) The Director of the Central Food Laboratory or, in a case where more than one central
food laboratories are established, the directors of such laboratories (ex-offico member);
(c) Two experts nominated by the central government;
(d) One representative each of the departments of food and agriculture, the central ministry
of food and agriculture, and one representative each of the central ministries of
commerce, defence, industry, supply and railways, nominated by the central government;
(e) One representative each nominated by the government of each state.
(f) Two representatives nominated by the central government to represent the union
territories;
(g) One representative each, nominated by the central government to represent the
agricultural, commercial and industrial interests;
(h) Five representatives nominated by the central government to represent the consumers'
interests, one of whom to be from the hotel industry;
(i) One representative of the medical profession nominated by the Indian Council of Medical
Research;
(j) One representative nominated by the Indian Standards Institution referred to in clause (e)
of section 2 of the Indian Standards Institution (Certification Marks) Act. 1952.

The members of the committee, other than ex-officio, are entitled to hold office for three years
unless their seats become vacant earlier by resignation, death or otherwise. The members are
eligible for re-nomination.21 The central committee may appoint sub-committees to discharge
functions as may be delegated to them.22 The task of appointing a secretary and other staff for the
committee has been assigned to the central government.23 The committee can make its own bye-
laws to regulate its functioning.24Besides the Central Committee for Food Standards, the central
government is empowered to establish one or more central food laboratory or laboratories to
carry out the functions as entrusted to it for them.25 The central government can also specify any

19
Supra note 1, sec. 3 (1).
20
Id., sec. 3(2).
21
Id., sec. 3(3).
22
Id., sec. 3(5).
23
. Id., sec. 3A (1) and (2).
24
Id., sec. 3(6).
25
Id., sec. 4.

8|Page
existing laboratory or institute as a central food laboratory for performing such functions.26 The
rules to prescribe the functions of a central food laboratory and the local area or areas within
which such a laboratory may carry out its functions are to be framed by the central government
in consultation with the Central Committee for Food Standards.27

MACHINARY FOR INSPECTION AND ANALYSIS OF FOOD

The Act empowers the central government or the state governments to appoint public analysts
for different areas as may be assigned by the central government or the state government, as the
case may be.28 The qualifications for the post are also to be prescribed by the central or state
government.29 Any person who has any financial interest in the manufacture, import or sale of
any article or food cannot be appointed as a public analyst. Different public analysts may be
appointed for different articles of food.30 Even more than one public analyst may be appointed in
any local area or areas and both would have concurrent powers and jurisdiction.31 Like food
analysts, central government or the state government are also empowered to appoint food
inspectors for different local areas. Persons having financial interest in the manufacture import or
sale of any article of food cannot be appointed as a food inspector.32

Every food inspector is deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 IPC.33 To
discharge his functions, the food inspector is vested with many powers.34 He is authorized to take
samples of any article of food from any person selling such article; or who is in the course of
conveying, delivering or preparing to deliver such article to a purchaser or consignee; or a
consignee after delivery of any such article to him.35 The inspector is authorized to send such
sample for analysis to the public analyst for the local area within which such sample has been
taken. With the previous approval of the local (health) authority having jurisdiction in the area
concerned, or with the previous approval of the food (health) authority, he can prohibit the sale
of any article of food in the interest of public health.

The food inspector can enter and inspect any place where any article of food is manufactured, or
stored for sale, or stored for the manufacture of any other article of food for sale, or exposed or

26
Id., proviso to sec. 4(1).
27
Id., sec. 4(2) (a).
28
Supra note 1, sec. 8.
29
Ibid.
30
Id., proviso to section 8.
31
State of UP. v. Hanif, AIR 1992 SC 1121.
32
Supra note 1, sec. 9.
33
Id., sec. 9(2).
34
Id., sec. 10.
35
A "consignee" does not include a person who purchases or receives any article of food for his own consumption.

9|Page
exhibited for sale or where any adulterant is manufactured or kept. He can take samples of all
such articles of food or adulterants for analysis. No samples of any article of food, being primary
food can be so taken if it is not intended for sale as such food.36

If any article of food appears to the food inspector to be adulterated or misbranded, he can seize
it and carry away or keep in the safe custody of the vendor and he shall, in either case, submit a
sample of the same for analysis to a public analyst. Where the food inspector keeps such an
article in the safe custody of the vendor he may require the vendor to execute a bond for a sum of
money equal to the value of such article with one or more sureties as the food inspector deems fit
and the vendor would have to execute the bond accordingly.37

This power of the inspector includes power to break open any package in which any article of
food may be contained and to break open the door of any premises where any article of food may
have been kept. The power to break open the package or door shall be exercised only after the
owner or any other person in charge of the package or in occupation of the premises, if he is
present therein, refuses to open the package or door on being called upon to do so. In either case,
take action should be taken only after recording the reasons for doing so.38 In exercising powers
of entry upon and inspection of any place, the provisions of the Cr PC relating to the search or
inspection of a place by a police officer executing a search warrant should be followed.39

The food inspector can seize any adulterant found in the possession of a manufacturer or
distributor etc. about which they are unable to account for to the satisfaction of the food
inspector. He can also seize account or other documents found in his possession or control and
which would be useful for, or relevant to, any investigation or proceeding under this Act. A
sample of such adulterant may be submitted for analysis to a public analyst.40 The books of
account or other documents can be seized by the food inspector only after the previous approval
of the authority to which he is officially subordinate. Where the Food Inspector takes any
samples, he is supposed to call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is
taken and take his or their signatures.41

Where any books of account or other documents are seized, the food inspector has to, within a
period not exceeding thirty days from the date of seizure, return the same to the person from
whom they were seized after taking copies thereof or extracts there from certified by that
person.42 Where such person refuses to certify the documents and a prosecution has been

36
Id., sec. 10(2).
37
Id., sec. 10 (4).
38
. Id., sec. 10(5).
39
Ibid.
40
Id., sec. 10(6).
41
Id., sec. 10(7).
42
Id., sec. 10(7 A).

10 | P a g e
instituted against him, such books of account or other documents would be returned to him only
after taking copies thereof or extracts there from as certified by the court.43

It is not necessary that the evidence of a food inspector must have corroboration from
independent witnesses. In State of U.P. v. Haniff44 it has been held that the evidence of the food
inspector is neither inherently suspected, nor rejected on that ground. He discharges the public
function in purchasing an article of food for analysis and if the article of food so purchased in the
manner prescribed under the Act is found adulterated, he is required to take action as per the law.
His evidence is to be tested on its own merits and if found acceptable, the court would be entitled
to rely on that. Where a sample is sent by food inspector or by the complainant without following
the prescribed procedure, the action can be said to be bad and in contravention of the law.45
Thus, the courts have held that the food inspector should call one or more persons present at the
time of taking of a sample.46 There should be cogent reasons to disbelieve his evidence.47

PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY FOOD INSPECTOR

When a food inspector takes a sample of food for analysis, he should give to the person from
whom he has taken the sample or purchased the article concerned, a notice in writing then and
there, of his intention to have the sample analyzed.48 The inspector has to divide the sample then
and there into three parts and mark and seal or fasten each part in desirable manner and take the
signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken. Where such
person refuses to sign or put his thumb impression, the food inspector can call upon one or more
witnesses and take his or their signatures or thumb impressions, as the case may be, in lieu of the
signature of thumb impression of such person.49 In State of Rajasthan v. Naresb Chand,50 the
court has reiterated that the requirement of section 11 of the Act is that the food inspector should
take the sample and divide it there and then in three parts and mark and seal each part in such
manner as its natural way permits and take signature or thumb impression of the person from
whom the sample has been taken.

The responsibility of the food inspector is only to send the sample immediately by the
succeeding working day to the public analyst. The method in which he has to send it is not
specified.51 Thereupon, one of the parts of the sample is to be sent for analysis to the public
analyst under intimation to the local (health) authority and the remaining two parts to the local
43
Id., proviso to sec. 10(7A).
44
Supra note 45
45
Yamuna Sab v. State of Bihar, 1990 (2) FAC 16; 1990 (1) BLJR 562.
46
State of Orissa v. K. Appa Rao Subudhi, 1990 (2) FAC 189; State of Assam v. Sumermal Jam, 1990 (2) FAC 223.
47
Ram Gopal Aggarwal v. S.M. Mitra, 1989 (2) FAC 339.
48
Supra note 1 sec. 11 (1) (a).
49
Id., sec. 11(1) (b).
50
1989(1) FAC 371.
51
Supra note 1, sec. 11(3). See also Food Inspector v. Noor Mohammad, 1989 (1) FAC 371.

11 | P a g e
(health) authority for the purpose that: (a) if the part of the sample sent to the public analyst is
lost or damaged, for use by the public analyst; (b) it be forwarded to the court, if requisitioned; or
(c) to be sent to other analyst, if one report is termed as erroneous.52 When a sample of any
article of food or adulterant is taken by the food inspector, he is bound to send it immediately by
the succeeding working day to the public analyst for the local area concerned.53 An article of
food should be produced before a magistrate not later than seven days after the receipt of the
report of the public analyst.54 Where an application is made to the magistrate in this behalf by the
person from whom any article of food has been seized, the magistrate would by order in writing
direct the food inspector to produce such article before him within the time as may be specified
in the order.55

If it appears to the magistrate on taking evidence, as he may deem necessary, that the article of
food produced before him is adulterated or misbranded, he may order it to be forfeited to the
central government, the state government or the local authority, as the case may be; or to be
destroyed at the cost of the owner or the person from whom it was seized so as to prevent its
being used as human food. In the alternate, it may be so disposed of as to prevent its being again
exposed for sale or used for food under its deceptive name or it may be returned to the owner, on
his executing a bond with or without sureties, for being sold under its appropriate name. Where
the magistrate is satisfied that the article is capable of being made to conform to prescribed
standards for human consumption after reprocessing, it may be allowed to be sold after
reprocessing under the supervision of an officer as may be specified in the order.56

If the adulterant produced before the magistrate is likely to be employed for adulteration and for
its possession the manufacturer, distributor or dealer is unable to offer any explanations
satisfactorily, he may order it to be forfeited to the central or the state government or the local
authority, as the case may be.57 However, if it appears to the magistrate that any article of food is
not adulterated or the adulterant which is purported to be an adulterant is not so, the person from
whose possession it was taken would be entitled to have it restored to him and the magistrate has
a discretion to award-compensation to such person from such fund as the state government may
direct in this behalf. The compensation cannot be more than the damage that person may have
suffered.58

52
Id., sec. 11(1) and (2).
53
. Id., sec. 11 (3).
54
Id., sec. 11 (4).
55
Id., proviso to sec. 11 (4).
56
Id., sec. 11(5) (a).
57
Id., sec. 11 (5) (b).
58
Id., sec. 11(6) (c).

12 | P a g e
PURCHASER’S RIGHT TO HAVE FOOD ANALYSED

An ordinary purchaser of any article of food other than a food inspector or a recognized
consumer association, whether the purchaser is a member of that association or not, can also
have an article of food analyzed by the public analyst on the payment of prescribed fee and
receive from him a This provision has been held by the court as directory and not mandatory in
nature: Binda Prasad v. State 1995 (1) FAC 43. Report of his analysis.59 The purchaser or
recognized consumer association should inform the vendor, at the time of purchase of such
article, of his or its intention to have such article so analyzed.60

Any action of such purchaser or the recognized consumer association should be in accordance
with the procedure as is applicable to a food inspector who takes a sample of food for analysis.61
If the report of the public analyst shows that the article of food is adulterated, the purchaser or
recognized consumer association would be entitled to get refund of the fees paid for the said
purpose.62

In Nand Kishore v. State of Madhya Pradesh,63 the applicant had not been sent a copy of the
report of the public analyst, he was held to have been deprived of opportunity of getting the
sample re-examined and the entire prosecution and proceedings were vitiated for non-
compliance of this mandatory requirement. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the
applicant were set aside.

In Munnalal v. State of M.P,64 the applicant was a milk vendor. A milk sample was seized from
him. One sample was sent to public analyst who found that milk was adulterated. At the instance
of the applicant, one sample was sent to Director, Central Food Laboratory who reported that the
sample could not be analyzed as it appeared to have decomposed. The report of third sample
stated that the milk was adulterated. The applicant raised an objection to the admissibility of the
third report.65 The trial court as well as the revisional court rejected the objection of the applicant
and held that the report on the third sample of milk would be admissible in evidence and could
be used by the prosecution.

59
Id., sec. 12.
60
Id., first proviso to sec. 12.
61
Second proviso to sec. 12; see also the procedure under sees. 11(2) and (3). A "recognized consumer
association" means a voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956, or under any
other law for the time being in force.
62
Id., third proviso to sec. 12.
63
1995 Cr LJ 3247.
64
2001 Cri LJ 1097.
65
Supra note, 1 sec. 13 (2D).

13 | P a g e
Until the receipt of the certificate of the result of the analysis from the Director, Central Food
Laboratory, the court cannot continue with the proceedings pending before it in relation to the
prosecution.

The provision of sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act is mandatory in nature.66 Sub-section
(2) of section 13 of the Act confers valuable right on the accused under which the accused can
make an application to the court within a period of 10 days from the receipt of copy of the report
of public analyst to get the samples of food analyzed in the Central Food Laboratory. In case the
sample is found by the Central Food Laboratory unfit for analysis due to decomposition by
passage of time or for any other reason attributable to the lapses on the side of prosecution, that
valuable right would stand denied, constituting prejudice to the accused, and entitling him to
acquittal. But mere delay as such will not per se be fatal to the prosecution case if the sample
continues to remain fit for analysis in spite of the delay.67 An accused is entitled under sub-
section (2) of section 13 of the Act to prove his innocence by getting his sample analyzed from
Central Food Laboratory which supersedes the report of the public analyst for ensuring a fair
trial.68
The certificate issued by the Director, Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report given by
the public analyst.69 Where a certificate obtained from the Director, Central Food Laboratory is
produced in any proceeding under this Act, it is not necessary in such proceeding to produce any
part of the sample of food taken for analysis.70

PENALTIES

If any person imports or makes any other person to import on his behalf into India or
manufactures for sale or store, sells or distributes any adulterated or misbranded article of food in
contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, he can be punished with imprisonment for a
term extending from six months to three years and a fine, not less than one thousand rupees.71
Same punishment is prescribed for (a) importing into India, manufacturing for sales, storing,
selling or distributing any adulterant which may not be injurious to health or (b) preventing a
food inspector from taking a sample as authorized by this Act; or (c) preventing a food inspector
from exercising any other power conferred on him by or under this Act; or (d) possessing as a
manufacturer of an article of food any adulterant which may not be injurious to health; or (e)
using any report or certificate of a test or analysis made by the Director, Central Food Laboratory
or by a public analyst or any extract thereof for the purpose of advertising any article of food;

66
Bijaya Kumar Ram v. State, 1989 (1) FAC 394.
67
T.V. Usman v. Food Inspector, Tellicherry Municipality, AIR 1994 SC 1818.
68
Srinivas Pradhan v. State ofOrissa, 1990 (2) FAC 101 (OH).
69
Supra note 1, sec. 13(3).
70
Id., sec. 13(4).
71
Id., sec. 16(1).

14 | P a g e
and giving to the vendor a false warranty in writing in respect of any article of food sold by
him.72

The above mentioned punishment shall be in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable
under the provisions of Sea Customs Act, 1878.73 If an article of food is imported or
manufactured to be sold or distributed being primary food and has been adulterated due to
human agency or is misbranded, imprisonment of three months extending up to two years and
fine of not less than five hundred rupees can be imposed on the person involved.74 The court will
have to record adequate and sufficient reasons in favour of such a judgment. If any article,
adulterated or misbranded but not specifically mentioned in the Act or the rules, is imported,
manufactured, stored, sold or distributed, the punishment shall be an imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three months and fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, for any
adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment.75

If any person whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, imports into India or
manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes, adulterated article of food, or any adulterant
which is injurious to health, he is, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the
Customs Act, 1878, punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year to six years and with
fine of not be less than two thousand rupees.76 However, if such article of food or adulterant,
when consumed by any person is likely to cause his death or is likely to cause such harm to his
body, which would amount to grievous hurt within the meaning of section 320 IPC, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may
extend to a term of life and fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees.77

In Durga Mahab Behera v. State o/Orissa,78 it has been held when a person, who is not a
license holder, sells adulterated food, the proper procedure should be followed to prosecute him
even if does not have a license. If any person, in whose safe custody any article of food has been
kept by the food inspector because of its being apparently adulterated or misbranded, tampers or
in any other manner interferes with such article, he can be punished with imprisonment for a
term of not be less than six months, which can extend to two years, and with fine of not be less
than one thousand rupees.79 If such a person sells or distributes such article which is found by the
magistrate before whom it is produced to be adulterated and which, when consumed by any

72
Ibid
73
Ibid.
74
Clause (i) of proviso to sec. 16(1).
75
Second proviso to sec. 16(1).
76
Id., sec. 16(1A).
77
Id., proviso sec. 16(1A).
78
1996 Cri LJ 1261; see also Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Doraban Kumar and State,l979 (1) FAC 124 pel).,
Sheorj Rajv. State and others, 1991 (1) FAC 220 (Del). Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jawala Prasad, 1984 (1) FAC
299 (1985 Cri LJ 1455) Del, Jagamath Singh v. State of Orissa,, 1990 OCR 379.
79
Supra note 1, sec. 16(1 AA).
15 | P a g e
person, is likely to cause death or is likely to cause such harm on his body as would amount to
grievous hurt, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
three years but which may extend to a term of life and with fine which shall not be less than five
thousand rupees.80

Convictions under these provisions are very rare. The investigations are generally not mentioned.
In Ranvir Saran v. State (Delhi Administration),81 a team of food inspectors visited the shop of
the petitioner. Anar dana was purchased from the shop and it was send to the public analyst for
analysis. The report of the public analyst stated that the sample does not conform to the standard.
Accordingly, the magistrate arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the case
beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the applicant. The session’s judge reduced the
conviction. The high court acquitted the accused stating that the entire case was not examined by
both the courts in proper perspective.

COGNIZANCE AND TRIAL OF OFFENCES

Prosecution for offences under this Act, other than those relating to warranty can be instituted
only by or with the written consent of the central or state governments or a person authorized in
this behalf by either of them.82 However, a prosecution for an offence under this Act may also be
instituted by a purchaser or recognized consumer association on the production of a copy of the
report of the public analyst along with the complaint in the court.83

The Act requires that any court inferior to that of a metropolitan magistrate or a judicial
magistrate of the first class cannot try an offence under the Act.84 An offence regarding
tampering of an article of food kept in the safe custody of any person is cognizable and non-
bailable.85 The prosecution must be instituted by the central government or the state government
or it must be instituted with the written consent of any of the specified authorities or persons. If
either of these two conditions are satisfied, there would be sufficient ground for the institution of
such a prosecution for an offence under the Act.86 If the chief medical officer is authorized to
institute a complaint, he can give his consent for launching of prosecution also.87

80
Id.,sec. 16 (IB).
81
1999 Cri LJ 1082 (Del).
82
Supra note 1, sec. 20.
83
Id., proviso to sec. 20.
84
Id., sec. 20(2).
85
Id., sec. 20(3).
86
A.K. Roy v. State of Punjab, AIR 1986 SC 2160.
87
Food Inspector, Health Deptt., Chandigarh v. MA Krishna Dhaba, AIR 1994 SC 664.

16 | P a g e
As already pointed out that no prosecution for an offence under the Act can be instituted except
by written consent of the central or state government. Where cognizance was taken on the FIR
lodged by the police but there was nothing on record that police was authorized by the central or
state government to institute the prosecution, the court was held to have no power to hear the
complaint thereby rendering the consequent proceedings liable to be quashed.88

Where at any time during the trial of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any person,
not being the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food, the court if satisfied on
the evidence adduced before it that such manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned
with that offence, then the court may proceed against him as though a prosecution had been
instituted against him also.89 These powers cannot be exercised before the commencement of
trial because it is only on the basis of evidence produced that the magistrate can act under this
section.90

The power to implead the manufacturer, distributor or dealer can, however, be exercised during
the trial of the offence under the Act.91 In M/s Omprakash Shivprakash v. K.I. Kuriakose,92 the
exercise of power to implead the manufacturer etc. was found to have been at a premature stage
and was held void.

The provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and section 360 Cr PC do not apply to a
person convicted of an offence under this Act unless that person is under eighteen years of age.93
Any metropolitan magistrate or any judicial magistrate of the first class can pass any sentence
authorized by this Act, except a sentence of imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding six
years, in excess of his powers under section 29 Cr PC.94 Any suit, prosecution or other legal
proceedings under the Act would not lie against any person for anything which has been done or
intended to be done in good faith.95

88
Yamuna Sab v. State of Bihar, 1990 (2) FAC 16 (Pat).
89
Id., sec. 20 A.
90
Radha Krishna Nair v. Food Inspector, 1989 (1) FAC 234.
91
MA. TJjakurDas Babu Ram v. State ofHimachal Pradesh, 1989 (1) FAC 343.
92
(2000) 1SCJ518.
93
Supra note 1, sec. 20AA.
94
Id., sec. 21.
95
Id., sec. 22.

17 | P a g e
CONCLUSION

Adulteration of food remains one of the serious problems in India due to scarcity conditions,
poor purchasing power of the vast majority of the population and ignorance of the consumers. It
has been difficult for the state to effectively supervise trading activities of public and private
undertakings engaged in production, distribution and sale of food stuffs. The present Act was
passed by the Parliament to bring about uniformity in the standards of food throughout India.
The consumer organizations can also get food items tested and initiate prosecutions against the
offenders. One of the essential features of the Act is that offences under it entail liability in as
much as requirement of mens rea is excluded. The Act provides for the setting up of the central
committee of food standards to perform advisory functions in relation to matters arising out of
the Act, and subcommittees for consideration of any complicated questions relating to fixation of
food standards. The Act empowers the central government or the state government to appoint
inspectors and public analysts of foodstuffs for different areas.

The primary objective of the law is to protect the health of the community and to prevent the
supply of adulterated foodstuffs by any person, as a part of his business activity. The Act is,
however, highly technical and complex. It is very difficult to assume that the law has fully
succeeded in attaining its objectives. The rules framed under the Act deal with diverse matters of
fixing standards of quality of numerous articles of food, collection of samples, use of
preservatives and flavoring agents, licensing and labeling of food etc. There is a need to fix
accountability in case of negligence on the part of inspectors or any other officers in the
implementation of relevant directions under the Act. People should be encouraged to make
complaints against the adulterers without fear. There is also lack of enough manpower
(inspectors), lack of infrastructure (labs), and no time frame for tests also. It is a weak law and
the punishment part of it is also defective because of too small fines.

As per recent reports the Department of Prevention of Food Adulteration, Government of Delhi
has employed only 28 inspectors when there are 1.5 lakh food establishments to be overseen.
This number is too small and has remained unchanged since 1960. To say, on the part of the
government, that .the 27 sub-district magistrates also act as local health officials and are entitled
to lift food samples in not a valid plea. Even if it may be so, the result is diarchy and no
accountability for either. So the system needs to be overhauled at it earliest.96

96
The Times of India, “Delhi Times” , p. 1 ( November 4, 2003)

18 | P a g e