Criminal Liability For Unsafe Manufacturing Practices
1. Concept: Unsafe Manufacturing Practices
Meaning
Unsafe manufacturing practices refer to production methods, processes, or handling of products that pose a threat to the safety, health, or life of consumers, workers, or the public.
Examples:
Manufacturing defective consumer goods that can cause injury (e.g., electrical appliances, toys).
Producing contaminated food, drugs, or cosmetics.
Using hazardous chemicals without proper safety measures.
Ignoring statutory standards for industrial safety, labeling, or quality control.
Such practices can attract civil liability (compensation claims) and criminal liability (punishment for negligence or recklessness).
2. Legal Provisions Governing Unsafe Manufacturing
A. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 272 IPC – Adulteration of Food or Drink
Punishable with imprisonment up to 6 months or fine.
Section 274 IPC – Sale of Adulterated Food, etc. as Genuine
Imprisonment up to 6 months or fine.
Section 276 IPC – Sale of Food, etc., causing Death
Punishment with imprisonment up to life or 10 years and fine.
Section 284 IPC – Negligent Conduct with Respect to Machinery
Imprisonment up to 6 months or fine, if negligence endangers life or safety of workers.
Section 287 IPC – Negligent Act Endangering Life or Health
Imprisonment up to 6 months or fine.
Section 304A IPC – Death Caused by Negligence
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years or fine, if death results from unsafe manufacturing.
B. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act)
Regulates manufacture, storage, distribution of food products.
Section 51: Offences relating to unsafe or substandard food products.
Punishment may extend to 3 years imprisonment or fine.
C. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
Section 27: Manufacture of drugs that are spurious, adulterated, or unsafe.
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 10 years and fine.
D. Factories Act, 1948
Sections 7, 21, 22: Mandates safety measures, precautions, and worker protections.
Non-compliance leading to injury/death → criminal liability under IPC or Factories Act.
3. Judicial Approach: Key Case Laws
Case 1: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) – Oleum Gas Leak Case
Facts:
Oleum gas leaked from Shriram Foods and Fertilisers in Delhi.
Residents suffered injuries due to negligence in handling hazardous chemicals.
Held:
Supreme Court invoked absolute liability principle for hazardous industries.
Liability is strict; proof of negligence not required.
Industries engaged in hazardous processes must ensure public safety at all costs.
Importance:
Landmark case establishing absolute liability for unsafe industrial practices in India.
Case 2: Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995) 6 SCC 651
Facts:
Unsafe manufacture and distribution of medical devices and surgical instruments.
Held:
Supreme Court held that medical negligence or unsafe products can attract criminal liability under IPC Sections 272, 274, 304A, depending on injury/death caused.
Importance:
Manufacturers cannot escape liability by claiming civil liability only; criminal liability applies for endangering life.
Case 3: M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) – Taj Trapezium Case
Facts:
Cement industries causing environmental pollution; unsafe air quality affecting public.
Held:
Supreme Court observed that unsafe industrial practices harming public health constitute a criminal offence.
Compensation for victims along with environmental directives issued.
Importance:
Criminal liability extends to indirect unsafe manufacturing affecting environment and public health.
Case 4: Nestlé India Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2005)
Facts:
Maggi noodles found with excessive lead content and unsafe for consumption.
Held:
Court directed recall of product and imposition of fines under FSS Act Sections 51, 52.
Nestlé also faced criminal prosecution for endangering consumer health.
Importance:
Example of unsafe manufacturing leading to criminal liability even for multinational corporations.
Case 5: M/s Shriram Industries v. State of Haryana (2010)
Facts:
Factory using toxic chemicals without proper safety measures; worker death occurred.
Held:
Sections 287 and 304A IPC applied.
Court emphasized employer’s duty to ensure safety and criminal negligence can lead to imprisonment.
Importance:
Reaffirms that unsafe manufacturing practices affecting employees attract direct criminal liability.
Case 6: Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India (1995) – Hazardous Drugs
Facts:
Unsafe and adulterated drugs marketed, endangering life.
Held:
Supreme Court held manufacturers criminally liable under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Mandated stricter enforcement and monitoring.
Importance:
Establishes principle of preventive and punitive action against unsafe manufacturing.
4. Key Legal Principles
Absolute Liability: Hazardous industries (chemical, nuclear, pharmaceutical) are strictly liable for accidents (MC Mehta).
Criminal Negligence: Unsafe practices endangering life/workers/consumers → IPC Sections 287, 304A.
Regulatory Compliance: Violation of FSS Act or Drugs Act → criminal prosecution.
Public Health Safety: Courts give priority to human life and environment over corporate profit.
Corporate Accountability: Companies and responsible officers can be personally prosecuted.
5. Conclusion
Unsafe manufacturing practices attract criminal liability under:
IPC (Sections 272, 274, 287, 304A),
FSS Act, 2006,
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940,
Factories Act, 1948, and
Environmental protection laws (in some cases).
Courts have consistently held:
Negligence or failure to ensure safety can lead to imprisonment, fines, and compensation.
Companies and their officers cannot hide behind the corporate veil if public health is endangered.
RELATED Blog
comments