Criminal Liability In Food Safety Violations
🧾 I. Concept of Criminal Liability in Food Safety Violations
1. Meaning
Criminal liability in food safety violations arises when a person, company, or entity manufactures, stores, distributes, sells, or imports unsafe, adulterated, or misbranded food, thereby endangering public health. Such acts constitute offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) and earlier under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act).
⚖️ II. Legal Framework
1. The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA)
This Act consolidates food laws and ensures safe food for human consumption. It sets criminal and civil liability for violations.
Key Provisions on Criminal Liability:
Section 59 – Penalty for unsafe food (imprisonment up to life and fine up to ₹10 lakh depending on harm caused).
Section 63 – Punishment for carrying out business without license (imprisonment up to 6 months and fine up to ₹5 lakh).
Section 66 – Offences by companies: when an offence is committed by a company, every person in charge and responsible for its conduct is deemed guilty.
Section 67 – Offences by government departments.
Earlier, such offences were prosecuted under:
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act)
Section 7 – Prohibited the manufacture, sale, or storage of adulterated or misbranded food.
Section 16 – Provided punishment (imprisonment and fine).
⚖️ III. Landmark Case Laws
Below are six significant cases that illustrate how criminal liability has been imposed for food safety violations.
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal, AIR 1976 SC 394
Facts:
The respondent, a halwai (sweet maker), was found selling khoya adulterated with starch. The Food Inspector collected samples, and laboratory tests confirmed adulteration.
Issue:
Whether the vendor could be held criminally liable even if adulteration was minor or unintentional.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that mens rea (guilty mind) is not required in offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Act is a social welfare legislation, and even minor adulteration makes the offence complete. The vendor was convicted.
Principle:
→ Food safety offences are strict liability offences; the prosecution need not prove intent.
2. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kartar Singh, AIR 1964 SC 1135
Facts:
The accused was prosecuted for selling adulterated mustard oil containing an unpermitted substance.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld conviction and stated that the burden of proving that food was not adulterated lies on the accused once the prosecution establishes that adulteration was detected.
Principle:
→ Once the food sample fails the prescribed standard, the vendor must disprove guilt.
3. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector, 2004 (13) SCC 343
Facts:
The company was prosecuted for selling bottles containing extraneous matter (fungal growth).
Issue:
Whether a large company could escape liability by blaming lower staff or distributors.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that corporate entities are liable under food safety laws. A company can be prosecuted and punished with fines; its directors or managers in charge can face imprisonment if responsible for operations.
Principle:
→ Corporate criminal liability is applicable in food safety violations.
4. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector, (2011) 1 SCC 176
Facts:
Samples of Pepsi and other beverages allegedly contained pesticide residues exceeding permissible limits. Pepsico challenged the prosecution claiming improper sampling and testing.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that prosecution must show strict adherence to procedural safeguards under the FSSA/PFA. If procedure is violated (e.g., improper sealing, wrong sampling), the accused can be acquitted.
Principle:
→ Criminal liability must be based on valid and reliable testing; technical lapses can vitiate proceedings.
5. Nestle India Ltd. v. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (Maggi Case), 2015 (NCDRC & Bombay HC)
Facts:
Samples of Maggi noodles were alleged to contain excessive lead and monosodium glutamate (MSG). FSSAI ordered a ban and criminal prosecution of Nestlé India and its directors.
Held:
The Bombay High Court quashed the ban temporarily, directing re-testing by accredited labs. Later tests cleared Maggi, but criminal liability proceedings were allowed to continue for misbranding and misleading advertisements.
Principle:
→ Manufacturers can face criminal liability for misbranding, misinformation, and unsafe food, even if later found safe.
6. State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, (1969) AIR 1297 (SC)
(Though primarily about administrative powers, it is cited in food safety contexts for natural justice.)
Principle:
→ Authorities must act within statutory limits and follow natural justice when imposing criminal liability or suspending licenses under the FSSA.
7. R. v. Woodrow (1846) 15 M & W 404 (English Case – Persuasive Value)
Facts:
The defendant unknowingly sold adulterated tobacco.
Held:
The Court ruled that ignorance or lack of intent is no defence.
Principle:
→ Food safety offences are absolute or strict liability offences worldwide — protection of public health overrides individual fault.
🧠 IV. Key Takeaways
Strict Liability: Mens rea is not required; even inadvertent sale of adulterated food attracts punishment.
Corporate Responsibility: Companies and their responsible officers are liable (Section 66, FSSA).
Procedural Fairness: Proper sampling, sealing, and analysis are essential for conviction.
Public Health Priority: Courts treat food safety violations seriously as they endanger large populations.
Punishments: Range from fine to life imprisonment depending on injury or death caused.
⚖️ V. Conclusion
Criminal liability in food safety ensures accountability across the supply chain—from manufacturer to retailer. Indian courts have consistently upheld the principle that public health takes precedence over individual fault. The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 strengthens enforcement by introducing corporate liability, higher penalties, and scientific standards.
The case laws discussed (Kacheroo Mal, Kartar Singh, Coca-Cola, Pepsico, Maggi, etc.) together demonstrate the evolution of a robust criminal framework to deter food adulteration and ensure public confidence in food safety.
RELATED Blog
comments