Food Adulteration Prosecutions
🧾 Food Adulteration Prosecutions
📌 1. What is Food Adulteration?
Food adulteration refers to the act of lowering the quality of food by adding, mixing, substituting, or removing certain substances, making it unsafe or injurious to health.
This can include:
Use of non-permitted additives
Substitution with cheaper or harmful ingredients
Contamination during processing or packaging
Selling expired or misbranded products
⚖️ 2. Legal Framework in India
🏛️ Earlier Law:
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act)
🏛️ Current Law:
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) – replaces PFA Act
👮♂️ Enforcement:
Food Safety Officers (FSOs)
Designated Officers (DOs)
Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI)
📘 3. Key Offences Under FSS Act
| Section | Provision | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Sec 59 | Unsafe food causing injury | ₹1–10 lakhs + imprisonment up to life |
| Sec 63 | Obstructing food safety officer | Fine up to ₹2 lakhs |
| Sec 52-57 | Misleading ads, misbranding, unlicensed sale | Fine + imprisonment depending on gravity |
🔍 4. Important Case Laws on Food Adulteration
Here are six detailed case laws that have shaped prosecution and interpretation in food adulteration matters.
✅ Case 1: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, AIR 1967 SC 970
Facts:
The accused sold milk which was found adulterated with water. He argued there was no mens rea (criminal intent).
Held:
Supreme Court ruled that mens rea is not required under the PFA Act. Offence is strict liability.
Significance:
Laid down the doctrine of strict liability — even accidental adulteration is punishable.
✅ Case 2: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kartar Singh, AIR 1975 SC 403
Facts:
Seller was caught with adulterated ghee. Claimed it was for personal consumption, not sale.
Held:
Court held that possession of adulterated food intended for sale is an offence. Burden shifts to accused to prove otherwise.
Significance:
Expanded scope — even intent to sell is sufficient, actual sale not necessary.
✅ Case 3: K. K. Narula v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 321
Facts:
Accused challenged constitutional validity of restrictions on food trade.
Held:
SC upheld that restrictions under PFA Act are reasonable in public interest and not violative of the right to trade (Article 19(1)(g)).
Significance:
Upheld public health as a legitimate ground for restricting business.
✅ Case 4: State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2003) 7 SCC 337
Facts:
Samples of edible oil sold by the accused were found adulterated with non-permitted substances.
Held:
Court emphasized strict adherence to procedure in sample collection and testing. Since procedural lapses were found, conviction was set aside.
Significance:
Shows that technical lapses can weaken prosecution, despite presence of adulteration.
✅ Case 5: Amery Pharmaceuticals v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 2612
Facts:
Accused was prosecuted for selling misbranded drugs and adulterated medicines.
Held:
Court held that misbranding and adulteration are distinct, but both are punishable. Offenders can’t escape by arguing lack of physical harm.
Significance:
Reinforced that food and drug safety laws are preventive in nature.
✅ Case 6: PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State, 2006 (Delhi HC)
Facts:
Delhi govt banned sale of soft drinks claiming harmful chemical presence (pesticide residues).
Held:
Court held that scientific evidence must meet standards set by FSSAI. Random assumptions cannot lead to prosecution.
Significance:
Protects businesses from arbitrary action; requires scientific evidence and standard compliance.
📊 5. Procedure for Food Adulteration Prosecution
Sampling by Food Safety Officer (FSO)
Sealing and coding of samples
Testing at Government Laboratory
Report by Food Analyst
Opportunity to challenge the report
Filing of prosecution or adjudication
Trial before Magistrate or Adjudicating Officer
🚨 6. Defenses Commonly Used (and Judicial Response)
| Defense | Court's Response |
|---|---|
| No mens rea | Not required (strict liability) |
| Delay in testing | Must not prejudice the accused |
| Improper sampling | Can weaken case; procedures must be followed |
| Not for sale | Presumption against accused if not proven |
| Lack of knowledge | Not a defense; owners are responsible |
✅ 7. Recent Trends and Focus
Stricter enforcement post FSS Act, 2006
Emphasis on scientific standards, labeling, and hygiene
Online food delivery platforms are also under scanner
Cases against popular brands show no one is exempt
Use of technology and e-monitoring for tracking compliance
📌 8. Conclusion
Food adulteration prosecution is crucial for public health and consumer protection. Courts have consistently upheld the strict nature of liability, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance while balancing fair trial rights.
Would you like a quick comparison between PFA Act vs FSS Act or a flowchart of the prosecution process? I'm happy to help!
RELATED Blog
0 comments