Prosecution Of Food Adulteration Under Pure Food Ordinance
🏛️ I. Introduction: Food Adulteration and the Pure Food Ordinance
Food adulteration refers to the act of adding, mixing, or substituting inferior or harmful substances in food with the intent to deceive consumers. This is a criminal offense under Indian law, primarily governed earlier by:
The Pure Food Ordinance, 1954 (later replaced by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954)
Relevant sections of IPC (Section 272–273, 272A) for adulteration causing harm
Objectives of the Pure Food Ordinance:
Protect public health by preventing consumption of adulterated or unsafe food.
Regulate the sale and manufacturing of food products.
Penalize manufacturers, sellers, and distributors who violate safety norms.
Prosecution under the Ordinance requires:
Establishing that the food is adulterated (defined by law).
Proof of intent or negligence on the part of the manufacturer or seller.
Ensuring evidentiary standards for lab tests and certification.
⚖️ II. Important Case Laws
1. K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1963)
Facts:
A manufacturer was prosecuted for selling adulterated edible oil under the Pure Food Ordinance. The defense argued that the oil was unintentionally contaminated.
Held:
The court held that intent to adulterate is not always necessary; negligence resulting in adulteration is sufficient for prosecution.
The burden of proof lies with the accused if statutory standards of purity are violated.
Principle:
Even unintentional adulteration that endangers public health is punishable. The Ordinance adopts a strict liability approach.
2. S. S. Puri v. State of Punjab (1965)
Facts:
A case involved the sale of adulterated milk in local markets. The accused claimed that contamination occurred during transportation.
Held:
Supreme Court emphasized the importance of proving adulteration scientifically through proper lab analysis.
Mere denial or excuse of negligence by the seller/manufacturer is insufficient.
Sample collection, testing, and proper certification are mandatory procedural safeguards.
Principle:
Prosecution under the Pure Food Ordinance relies heavily on scientific proof and proper adherence to procedure.
3. Union of India v. Shamsher Singh (1971)
Facts:
The case involved adulterated spices sold in the market. The accused argued that the spices were diluted without knowledge and intent to deceive.
Held:
Court reaffirmed that intent is not a prerequisite for prosecution.
Statutory provisions are strict liability offenses to protect public health.
Emphasized deterrence over technical defenses.
Principle:
Public health and safety are of paramount importance; statutory offenses under food laws are penal in nature, and strict compliance is expected from manufacturers and sellers.
4. Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India (1995 3 SCC 42)
Facts:
The petitioner challenged government inaction against widespread food adulteration, particularly in street food and packaged goods.
Held:
Supreme Court directed government authorities to enforce food safety laws effectively.
Recognized the right to safe food as a fundamental right under Article 21 (right to life).
Ordered regular monitoring, inspection, and strict prosecution under the Ordinance and Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Principle:
The case links food adulteration prosecution to constitutional rights and mandates active enforcement by authorities.
5. Shyam Narain v. State of U.P. (1978)
Facts:
A dealer was charged with selling adulterated ghee and edible fats. The defense questioned the authenticity of lab reports.
Held:
Supreme Court clarified that laboratory certification and chain of custody of samples are crucial for conviction.
Minor procedural lapses may affect prosecution, but substantial evidence of adulteration is sufficient for conviction.
Principle:
Proper evidence collection and testing are mandatory; the law aims to balance public protection with fair trial rights.
🧭 III. Key Principles from Jurisprudence
Strict Liability Offense:
Food adulteration is punishable even without intent to deceive (K.A. Abbas, Shamsher Singh).
Evidence-Based Prosecution:
Lab tests, sample integrity, and certification are crucial (S.S. Puri, Shyam Narain).
Public Health Priority:
Courts prioritize consumer safety over technical defenses by manufacturers.
Constitutional Dimension:
Right to safe food is part of Article 21, linking criminal prosecution to fundamental rights (Consumer Education & Research Centre case).
Preventive and Deterrent Focus:
The law emphasizes deterrence, ensuring manufacturers adhere strictly to safety standards.
📘 IV. Conclusion
The prosecution of food adulteration under the Pure Food Ordinance demonstrates the strict and preventive nature of public health law in India:
Strict liability principle ensures negligence or intent is punished to safeguard consumers.
Scientific evidence and procedural safeguards are mandatory for conviction.
Courts have progressively connected food safety to fundamental rights, ensuring proactive enforcement by authorities.
In essence, the law treats adulteration not merely as a regulatory offense but as a serious threat to life and health, warranting strict judicial scrutiny.
RELATED Blog
0 comments