60

Chapter - 4
THE PREVENTION OF FOOD
ADULTERATION ACT, 1954
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.

I. 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 (ia) of the Act, an article of food
can be said to be adulterated if:
(1) 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

1. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, sec. 2(i).

1. Id., sec. 2(ii)(a).

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954

61

(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
(viti) 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 p e r m i t t e d

preservative in excess of the prescribed limits; or

(xi)

the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard
or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed
limits of variability, but which renders it injurious to health; or

(xii) the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard
or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed
limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health.
An article is not deemed to be adulterated where the quality or purity of
the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed standards or
its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of
variability, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human
agency. Also, where two or more articles of primary food are mixed
together and the resultant article of food is stored, sold or distributed under
a name, which denotes the ingredients thereof; and is not injurious to health,
such an article is not deemed to be adulterated.3 In Northan Mai v. State of
Rajasthan,4 the food inspector purchased from the appellant some chilly
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

3.
4.

Id., sec. 2(ia),(b) to (m).

1995 CriLJ 2661.

A TREATISE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

62

court but the apex court held that the adulteration found in the sample was
marginal and there 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 GaurangaAich v. State of
Assam,5 a mere addition of salt to chilly 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 ofRajasthan v. Ladu Ram,6 the respondent selling milk without a
valid licence was not convicted on the ground that cogent reasons were
recorded by the magistrate for his acquittal.
In Kailash Chandra v. State ofU.P.,7 the applicant was convicted by the
trial court for false and misleading statements in labels, because the quantum
of salt found by the public analyst was marginally in excess from the
quantity shown on the label. In appeal, the applicant was acquitted of the
charges as the excess being only marginal and not harmful. It is clear from
various cases that many of the accused get acquitted on revision by higher
courts on multifarious considerations. In Raj Kumar v. State ofU.P.8, the
food inspector took a sample of Heengirom the applicant. The inspector
sent the sample to public analyst for its analysis. On receiving the report
against the applicant, the evidence was analysed by the court and the
prosecution resulted into the conviction of the applicant. On revision, the
conviction was set aside by the Allahabad High Court.
In Gyan Chandra v. Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Kanpur,9 the conviction and
the sentence passed by the trial court were set aside on revision, and the fine
was refunded, where the sample of mustard oil was collected from the
applicant and was found to be adulterated. Similarly in K. Sunitha v. State of
Rajasthan,10 another case of adulterated mustard oil, the chief judicial
magistrate had taken cognisance against the petitioners and directed to
summon them by bailable warrants. The order of taking cognisance was,
however, quashed on revision.
In Gurmukh Das v. State ofMadhya Pradesh11, acquittal was granted to the
accused from whom the sample of )'alibi had been taken in 'polythene
packet' which is not a suitable container. In M. Eswaraiah v. State of A.P.,12
the food inspector purchased Atta and sent it to the public analyst. The
adulteration was found very marginal. The court held that adulteration was
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

1990(2)FAC41.
2002 Cri LJ 426 (Raj).
2001 All LJ 2753.
2001 Cri LJ 2093 (All).
2001 All JL 849.
2001 Cri LJ 2727 (Raj).
2000 Cri LJ 2419 (Mad).
1999 (1) ALJ 682.

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954

63

very low and not strictly complying with the requirements of law. Revision
was allowed and the judgment and sentence were set aside. In Ghansu v.
State o/Madhya Pradesh13, the benefit of doubt doctrine was attracted to
make acquittal possible for the accused.
In State ofHimanchal Pradesh v. Madan Lal,u the food inspector allegedly
found milk, in the possession of the accused, meant for sale, which he
purchased and sent for analysis. The sample was found deficient of the
minimum prescribed standard. On prosecution the accused was sentenced
with simple imprisonment and fine. The accused was acquitted by the high
court. Technical lapses in prosecution prove fatal to the conviction, which
need to be avoided.
In Maya Prakash v. State ofU.P. and Another15, 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
prosecutional lapses had been traced by courts in Subhash Chander v. State of
Punjab,16 BalKrishan v. State ofRajasthan,17 Dilip Singh v. State ofRajasthan18,
Shamhhubhai Sankabhi v. Chandrakant Devshankar and another19, Kishan Lai v.
State ofRajasthan,20 Khitaiv. State ofM.P21 and P. Unnikrishan v. Food Inspector,
Palghat Municipality, Palghat.22
For the purposes of the Act, the term "food" has been given very wide
meaning. It c o n n o t e s any article used as food or drink for h u m a n
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 flavouring matter or condiments, and any other article declared as
such by central government. 2 3 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:24
(a)

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

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

1999 Cri LJ 2843 (Mad).

1999 Cri LJ 4028 (HP).
1998 All LJ 1163.
1997 Cri LJ 563 (Pun).
1997 RLW (2) 1082.
1997 RLW (2) 1756.
1996 Cri LJ 1350 (Guj).
2001 Cri LJ 3617 (Raj).
1995 Cri LJ 3244 (MP).
1995 Cri LJ 3638.
Supra note 1, sec. 2(v).
Id., sec. 2 (i x).

A TREATISE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

64

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 n o t
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 thereunder; or

(k)

it is not labeled in accordance with the requirements of this Act

or rules made thereunder.

Any article of food, being a produce of agriculture or horticulture in its

natural form means primary food. 25 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
25. Id., sec. 2 (xiia).

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954

65

an attempt to sell any such article.26 In V.G.K. Menon v. State of Kerala,27 it

has been held that supply of sample and payment of its cost cannot amount
to sale for the purpose of the Act.
If an article of food is harmful to health or repugnant to human use, it is
termed as 'unwholesome' and 'noxious' respectively.28 Liquor (including
c o u n t r y liquor) is an article used as a drink and is meant for human
consumption and for the purposes of the Act is included in the definition of
"food" under clause 9(v) of section 2. 29

II. Central Committee for Food Standards and Central Food

Laboratory
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. 30 The following
have been prescribed to be its members: 31
(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;

26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.

Id., sec. 2 (xiii).

1998 (l)KLT 981.
Supra note 1, sec. 2(xv).
State ofHimachal Pradesh v. Raja Ram, 1990 (2) FAC 231.
Supra note 1, sec. 3 (1).
Id., sec. 3(2).

66

A TREATISE O N CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

(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. 32 The
central committee may appoint sub-committees to discharge functions as
may be delegated to them. 33 The task of appointing a secretary and other
staff for the committee has been assigned to the central government. 34 The
committee can make its own bye-laws to regulate its functioning. 3 '
Besides 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 or them. 36 The
central government can also specify any existing laboratory or institute as a
central food laboratory for performing such functions. 37 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.38 The procedure for the submission to any
such laboratory of samples of articles of food for analysis or tests are also to
be prescribed by the central government in like manner. 39

III. Restrictions on Import and Manufacture of Certain Food

Items
Under section 5 of the Act, the import of adulterated and misbranded food
is prohibited in clear terms and the import of any other articles of food is
allowed only in accordance with the conditions of the licence. In this
respect, the law relating to sea customs also applies and the officers of
customs have the same powers in respect of such articles of food as they
have in respect of goods prohibited under the Sea Customs Act. 40 The
commissioner of customs, or any officer of the government authorized by
the central government in this behalf, can detain any imported package
which he suspects to contain any article of food the import of which is
prohibited and forthwith report such detention to the director of the
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

Id., sec. 3(3).

Id., sec. 3(5).
Id., sec. 3A (1) and (2).
Id., sec. 3(6).
Id., sec. 4.
Id., proviso to sec. 4(1).
Id., sec. 4(2) (a).
Id., sec. 4(2) (b).
Id., sec. 6; see sec. 18 of the Sea Customs Act, 1962.

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954

67

Central Food Laboratory and, if required by him, send samples of the

suspected article of food to the said laboratory. 41
Section 7 of the Act prohibits manufacture for sale, store, or
distribution of any adulterated food and misbranded food. Restriction
extends also to other articles of food for the sale of which a licence is
prescribed, except when manufactured in accordance with the conditions of
the licence. The manufacture of any articles of food, the sale of which is
restricted by the food (health) authority in the interest of public health is
also prohibited. The prohibition covers even the manufacture of any
adulterants. In this respect, any person storing adulterated food or
misbranded food for the manufacture of any other article of food for sale
can also be deemed to have stored the restricted commodities.

IV Machinery 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
g o v e r n m e n t or the state government, as the case may b e . 4 ' The
qualification for the post are also to be prescribed by the central or state
g o v e r n m e n t . 4 3 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.44 Even more than one public analyst may be appointed in
any local area or areas and both would have concurrent powers and
j u r i s d i c t i o n . 4 5 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. 46
Every food inspector is deemed to be a public servant within the
meaning of section 21IPC. 4 7 To discharge his functions, the food inspector
is vested with many powers. 4 8 He is authorised 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. 49 The
inspector is authorized to send such sample for analysis to the public analyst
41. Id., sec. 6(2).
42. Supra note 1, sec. 8.
43. Ibid.
44. Id., proviso to section 8.
45. State of UP. v. Hanif, AIR 1992 SC 1121.
46. Supra note 1, sec. 9.
47. Id., sec. 9(2).
48. Id., sec. 10.
49. A "consignee" does not include a person who purchases or receives any article of
food for his own consumption.

68

A TREATISE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

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 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. N o samples of any article of
food, being primary food can be so taken if it is not intended for sale as
such food. 50
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. 51 If the article of food seized is of a perishable nature
and the local (health) authority is satisfied that such article of food is so
deteriorated that it is unfit for human consumption, the said authority may,
after giving notice in writing to the v e n d o r , cause the same to be
destroyed. 52
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, tke action should be taken only after recording
the reasons for doing so. 5 3 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.54
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
50. Id., sec. 10(2).
51. Id., sec. 10 (4).
52. Id., sec. 10(4A).
53. Id., sec. 10(5).
54. Ibid.

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954

69

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. 55 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.56
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 therefrom certified by that person. 5 7
Where such person refuses to certify the documents and a prosecution has
been instituted against him, such books of account or other documents
would be returned to him only after taking copies thereof or extracts
therefrom as certified by the court. 58 When any adulterant is seized, the
b u r d e n of proving that such adulterant was not for the purpose of
adulteration, lies on the person from whose possession such adulterant was
seized. 59 The food inspector is empowered to exercise the authority of a
police officer under section 42 Cit PC for the purpose of ascertaining the
true name and residence of the person from whom a sample is taken or an
article of food is seized. 6 0 Exercising these powers of seizure etc.
vexatiously and without any reasonable grounds of suspicion or commits
any other act to the injury of any person without having with reason to
believe that such act is necessary for the execution of his duty, is punishable
with fine which would not be less than five hundred rupees but which may
extend to one thousand rupees. 61
It is not necessary that the evidence of a food inspector must have
corroboration from independent witnesses. In State o/U.P. v. Haniff2 it
has been held that the evidence of the food inspector is not 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
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.

Id., sec. 10(6).

Id., sec. 10(7).
Id., sec. 10(7 A).
Id., proviso to sec. 10(7A).
Id., sec. 10(7 B).
Id., sec. 10(8).
Id., sec. 10(9).
Supra note 45.

70

A TREATISE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

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.63 Thus, the courts have held that the food
inspector should call one or more persons present at the time of taking of a
sample. 64 There should be cogent reasons to disbelieve his evidence.*"

V. Procedure to be Followed by Food Inspectors

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. 66 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. 67 In State of Rajasthan v.
Naresb Chand,bS 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 anaiyst. The
method in which he has to send it is not specified.69 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 (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.70 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

63. Yamuna Sab v. State of Bihar, 1990 (2) FAC 16; 1990 (1) BLJR 562.
64. State ofOrissa v. K. Appa Rao Subudhi, 1990 (2) FAC 189; State ofAssam v. Sumermal
Jam, 1990 (2) FAC 223.
65. Ram Gopal Aggarwal v. S.M. Mitra, 1989 (2) FAC 339.
66. Supra note 1 sec. 11 (1) (a).
67. Id., sec. 11(1) (b).
68. 1989(1) FAC 371.
69. Supra note 1, sec. 11(3). See also Food Inspector v. Noor Mohammad, 1989 (1) FAC 371.
70. Id., sec. 11(1) and (2).

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954

71

local area concerned. 7 1 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. 72 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. 73
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 b o n d 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. 74
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. 75 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.76

VI. 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 analysed by the
public analyst on the payment of prescribed fee and receive from him a
71. Id., sec. 11 (3). This provision has been held by the court as directory and not
mandatory in nature: Binda Prasad v. State 1995 (1) FAC 43.
72. Id., sec. 11 (4).
73. Id., proviso to sec. 11 (4).
74. Id., sec. 11(5) (a).
75. Id., sec. 11 (5) (b).
76. Id., sec. 11(6) (c).

72

A TREATISE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

report of his analysis.77 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.78
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. 79 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. 80
The public analyst should deliver, the report of his analysis of the article
submitted for analysis to the local (health) authority. If some proof of
adulteration has been shown in the report, prosecution has to be initiated
against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken
or purchased. The health authority has to forward a copy of the report to
the person or persons involved, informing him or them that, if it is so
desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within
a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get
the reserved sample of the article of food, kept by such authority, analysed
by the Central Food Laboratory. 81
In Nand Kishore v. State ofMadhya Pradesh,82 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.
When an application is made by the accused to the court, after the
report to get the sample kept by the concerned authority, the court shall
require the local (health) authority to forward the part or parts of the sample
kept by the said authority to the court within a period of five days from the
date of receipt of such requisition. 83 On receipt of the part or parts of the
sample, the court would first ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening
are intact and the signature or thumb impression is not tampered with. It
has to dispatch one part of the sample under its own seal to the Director,
77. Id., sec. 12.
78. Id., first proviso to sec. 12.
79. 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.
80. Id., third proviso to sec. 12.
81. Id., sec. 13(2).
82. 1995 Cr LJ 3247.
83. Id., sec. 13(2A).

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954

73

Central Food Laboratory, who would thereupon send a certificate to the

court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of
the part of the sample specifying the result of analysis.84
Where two parts of the sample have been sent to the court and only one
part of the sample has been sent by the court to the Director, Central Food
Laboratory, the court has to return the remaining part to the local (health)
authority and that authority can destroy that part after the certificate from
the Director of the Central Food Laboratory has been received by the
court. 85 Where the part of the sample sent by the court to the Director,
Central Food Laboratory is lost or damaged, the court shall require the local
(health) authority to forward the part of the sample retained by it to the
court and on receipt thereof, it would send the same to the Director, Central
Food Laboratory, in the manner provided above.86 In Munnalal v. State of
M.P,87 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 analysed 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. 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.
Until the receipt of the certificate of the result of the analysis from the
Director, Central Food Laboratory, the court can not continue with the
proceedings pending before it in relation to the prosecution. 88 In Jameel v.
State ofU.P.,^ the Food Inspector took sample of mixed milk of cow and
buffalow which was offered for sale. The food inspector took the sample
and performed the formalities and sent the samples for analysis. The report
of the public analyst showed that the sample was deficient. Report was sent
by registered post to accused which was not received by him. N o step was
taken to send the notice against non-compliance. Accused was deprived of
his right to get sample analysed by Central Food Laboratory. The case came
up for trial and ended in conviction and then a remand was made-by the
lower appellate court and after it, the case was tried summarily and
conviction was made again by trial court. Appeal was dismissed by the
sessions court, but the high court allowed the revision and set aside the
order passed by both the courts below. If, after considering the report, the
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.

Id., sec. 13 (2B).

Id., sec. 13(2C).
Id., sec. 13(2B).
2001 Cri LJ 1097.
Supra note, 1 sec. 13 (2D).

89. 2000 Cri LJ 3049 (All); 2000 All LJ 1253.

74

A TREATISE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

local (health) authority is of the opinion that the report delivered by the
public analyst is erroneous, it should forward one of the parts of the sample
kept by it to any other public analyst for analysis. If the report of analysis by
the public analyst is to.the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the
procedures as detailed out above for sending the sample to Director, Central
Food Laboratory will follow.90
In Motumal v. State ofM.P.,91 the petitioner was found guilty of selling
adulterated peppermint to food inspector. The sample was analysed by the
public analyst, whose report revealed that the sample did not conform to the
standard without a mention of the standard. The trial court convicted the
accused on the ground that the sample had been purchased from him and
the sampling was in accordance with law. The sessions court confirmed
these findings. The high court reversed the judgment and held that there
was no need to discuss on the objection regarding compliance or noncompliance as there was nothing on record of the public analyst to show
that something present in it affected the quality or nature of the article
injuriously or it had any filthy, putrid, rotten or decomposed or diseased
animal or vegetable substance or was unfit for human consumption.
The question whether the right conferred on the accused person, under
section 13(2) of the Act is automatically extinguished if such right is not
exercised by the accused within a period of ten days came up for
consideration before Rajasthan High C o u r t in Hanuman v. State of
Rajasthan.92 The court did not agree with the extinguishing of the right and
declared it erroneous and impermissible in view of article 22(2) of the
Constitution
The provision of sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act is mandatory
in nature. 93 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, 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.94
An accused is entitled under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act to

90.
91.
92.
93.
94.

Id., sec. 13 (2E).

1999 Cri LJ 4038.
1998 Cri LJ 31 (Raj).
Bijaya Kumar Ram v. State, 1989 (1) FAC 394.
T.V. Usman v. Food Inspector, Tellicherry Municipality, AIR 1994 SC 1818.

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954

75

prove his innocence by getting his sample analyzed from Central Food
Laboratory which supercedes the report of the public analyst for ensuring a
fair trail. 95
The certificate issued by the Director, Central Food Laboratory
supersedes the report given by the public analyst. 96 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.97
In Jagmohan Singh and Partha Saratbi Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal,9S

the court held that the law is very clear in the point that the certificate issued
by the Director, Central Food Laboratory shall supersede the report given
by the public analyst under section 13(1) (2). The order of the magistrate was
set aside and the prayer was allowed.

VII. Enforcement Measures

Any manufacturer, distributor and dealer should give to a vendor, about
every article of food warranty in writing in the prescribed form about nature
and quality of such article of food. A bill, cash memo or invoice in respect
of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer, distributor or
dealer is deemed to be warranty given by such manufacturer, distributor or
dealer under this section.99 Every vendor of an article of food is duty bound
to disclose to the food inspector the name, address and other particulars of
the persons from whom he purchased the article of food. 100 The Act
authorizes the central government or the state government to involve local
medical practitioner of any area also in the process of prevention of food
adulteration requiring them to report all occurrences of food poisoning
coming within their cognizance to such officer as may be specified in the
notification. 101

VIII. 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

95. Srinivas Pradhan v. State ofOrissa, 1990 (2) FAC 101 (OH).
96. Supra note 1, sec. 13(3).
97. Id., sec. 13(4).
98. 1995 Cri LJ 3735 (Cal).
99. Supra note 1, sec. 14, the expression "distributor" shall include a commission agent.
100. Id., sec. 14(A).
101. Id., sec. 15.

76

A TREATISE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

thousand rupees. 102 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 F o o d
Laboratory or by a public analyst or any extract thereof for the purpose of
advertising any article of food; and (f) giving to the vendor a false warranty
in writing in respect of any article of food sold by him. 103
The above mentioned punishment shall be in addition to the penalty to
which he may be liable under the provisions of Sea Customs Act, 1878.104 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 upto two years and
fine of not less than five hundred rupees can be imposed on the person
involved. 105 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 m e n t i o n e d in the Act or the rules, is i m p o r t e d ,
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. 106
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.107 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 I P C , 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. 108
W2.Id., sec. 16(1).
103. Ibid
104. Ibid.
105. Clause (i) of proviso to sec. 16(1).
106. Second proviso to sec. 16(1).
107. Id., sec. 16(1A).
108. Id., proviso sec. 16(1A).

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954

77

In Durga Mahab Behera v. State o/Orissa,109 it has been held when a

person, who is not a licence holder, sells adulterated food, the proper
procedure should be followed to prosecute him even if does not have a
licence. 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. 110 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 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. 111
Convictions under these provisions are very rare. The investigations are
generally not mentioned. In Ranvir Saran v. State (Delhi Administration),*12 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 sessions 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.
Some judgments have tried to lay down standards for quality of the
reports of the analysts. In M/s Raj Traders v. State ofH.P.,11^ the food
inspector purchased the mirch kutti and sent it to public analyst. The article
was found containing a non-permitted oil soluble coal-tar dye of red shade
as an admixture. So the contents of the sample were found adulterated. The
shopkeeper, his firm and the petitioner were prosecuted. The main point of
consideration in this petition was whether the report satisfies the conscience
of the court that "coal-tar dye" was a non-permitted one; if not, can it form
the basis for prosecuting the offenders. The court held that the report does
not give any data nor has it been shown whether the article in question was

109.1996 Cri LJ 1261; see also Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Doraban Kumar and
State,l979 (1) FAC 124 pel)., SheorjRajv. State and others, 1991 (1) FAC 220 (Del).
Municipal Corporation ofDelhi v. Jawala Prasad, 1984 (1) FAC 299 (1985 Cri LJ 1455)
Del, Jagamath Singh v. State ofOrissa,, 1990 OCR 379.
110. Supra note 1, sec. 16(1 AA).
111. Id.,sec. 16 (IB).
112. 1999 Cri LJ 1082 (Del).
113. 1995 Cri LJ 1990 (HP).

78

A TREATISE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

unfit for human consumption. The court observed that the report of the
analyst must normally be clear, un-ambiguous and understandable, if not to
all, at least to a sizeable section of the people who are non-experts.
In Sawaran Singh v.. State o/Haryana114, the food inspector purchased
milk from the accused and sent one part of the sample to the public analyst,
who found that the milk was not of prescribed standard. On the request of
the accused, second sample was sent to the Director, Central F o o d
Laboratory for analysis. The trial court held accused guilty of the offence
and convicted and sentenced him. The accused filed petition for revision in
the high court. The court held that the public analyst as well as Director,
Central Food Laboratory found that sample contained more fat than
prescribed. However, according to the latter, there was a marginal
deficiency. The court observed that this deficiency can be attributed to the
wrongful method of taking the sample of milk. The benefit of doubt was
given to the accused, who was acquitted of the charge.

IX. Summary Trials

Under the Essential Commodities Act, 1985 certain offences are
trialable summarily, but under the present Act various offences can be tried
in a summary way by a judicial magistrate of the first class specially
empowered in this behalf by the state government or by a metropolitan
magistrate. In a summary trail, the magistrate can pass a sentence of
i m p r i s o n m e n t only for a term not exceeding one year. 1 1 5 If at the
commencement of, or in the course of a summary trial under this section, it
appears to the magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a sentence
of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or
that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the
magistrate would, after hearing the parties, order accordingly and proceed to
hear the case in the manner provided by the Cr PC. 116
Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company,
the company is deemed to be guilty of the offence and is liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly. Any person, who has been
nominated to be in charge of, and responsible to the company for the
conduct of the business of the company or where no person has been so
nominated, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in
charge of and was responsible to the company of its business, is liable for
the same punishment. 117
114.1998 CriLJ 204 (P&H).
115. Id., sec. 16A.
116. This section is an exception to section 262(2) Cr PC. The word 'shall' may be
understood as 'may' when a case is tried in a summary way. The procedure to be
followed is of a summons case: Chandak v. Food Inspector, 1990 (1) FAC 76.
117. Id., sec. 17(1).

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954

79

Such responsible person, however, cannot be punished, if he proves

that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised
all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. 118 In Smt.
Vidya Wati Kanodia v. Local Health Authority,113 the appeal of the petitioner
was allowed by the court on the ground that his responsibility for conduct
of business was not stated in the complaint. The court held that impleading
him in the complaint without explaining his role in commission of offence
was improper.
A company may authorize any of its directors or managers, employed in
a managerial or supervisory capacity, to exercise all such powers and take all
such steps as may be necessary or expedient to prevent commission by the
company of any offence under this Act and may inform the local (health)
authority about such nomination alongwith the written consent of such
director or manager. 120 A company may nominate different persons for its
different branches and establishments, if it has more than one units. Where
an offence has been c o m m i t t e d by a company with the consent or
connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of any director,
manager, secretary or other officer of the company, not being a person
nominated as responsible person, such director, manager, secretary or other
officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to
be proceeded against and punished accordingly.121
It is clear form the above scheme that where a company has committed
an offence under the Act, the person nominated to be incharge of, and
responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business shall be
proceeded against unless it is shown that the offence was committed with
the consent, connivance, negligence of any other director, manager,
secretary or officer of the company, in which case the said person can also
be proceeded against and punished for commission of offence. 122 The
person incharge of the company must be prosecuted alongwith the company
under this section. 123 In the absence of specific pleadings in the complaint
regarding the person in charge of and responsible to the conduct of the
business, the prosecution launched against him is not maintainable and the
same is to be quashed. 124

118..W., proviso to sec. 17(1).

119. 2002 CriLJ 471.
120. Id., sec. 17(2).
121. Id., sec. 17(4).
122. R. Banaerjee v. H.D. Dubey, AIR 1992 SC 1168.
123: State ofAssam v. Paban Kumar Aggarwal, 1990 (1) FAC 115.
124. Carborandum Universal Madras v. Food Inspector Tbiruvettiyur Municipality, 1989 (1) FAC
367.

A TREATISE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

80

X. Forfeiture of Property
Where any person has been convicted for the contravention of any of the
provisions of this Act or of any rule thereunder, the article of food in
respect of which the contravention has been committed may be forfeited to
the government. However, where the court is satisfied that the concerned
article of food is capable of being made to conform to prescribed standards
for human consumption after reprocessing, the court may order the article
of food to be returned to the owner, on his executing a bond with or
without sureties for being sold subject to the other provisions of this Act,
after reprocessing under the supervision of svich officer as may be specified
therein. 125

XI. Defences in Prosecution

It shall be no defence in a prosecution for an offence pertaining to the sale
of any adulterated or misbranded article of food to allege merely that the
vendor was ignorant of the nature, substance or quality of the food sold by
him or that the purchaser having purchased any article for analysis was not
prejudiced by the sale.126 The vendor should, therefore, duly discharge his
burden to the necessary extent in terms of proper storage and maintaining
its original condition. 727 Accordingly, the vendor shall not be deemed to
have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated to
misbranded article of food if he proves: (a) that the concerned article of
food was purchased by him (i) from a duly licensed manufacturer,
distributor or dealer; (ii) from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer, with
a written warranty in the prescribed form (in cases other than where licence
is prescribed); and (b) that the article of food while in his possession was
properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it.128
Any person claiming that he had given warranty required by the
provisions of the Act 129 shall be entitled to appear at the hearing and give
evidence. 130 A person is entitled to raise a defence in prosecution if the
facts of the case suggest that the he has duly discharged the burden to the
extent necessary under the above mentioned provision. l j l

Xil. 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
125.Supra note 1, sec. 18.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.

Id., sec. 19(1).

P. Unnikrishnan v. FoodInstpector, PalghatMunicipality, AIR 1995 SC 1983.
Supra note 1, sec. 19(2).
Id., sec. 14.
Id., sec. 19(3).
Supra note 127 at 1984.

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954

81

or state governments or a person authorized in this behalf by either of

them. 132 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 alongwith the
complaint in the court. 133
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. 134 An offence regarding tampering of an article of food kept
in the safe custody of any person is cognizable and non-bailable. 135 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. 136 If the chief medical officer is
authorized to institute a complaint, he can give his consent for launching of
prosecution also. 137
As already pointed out that no prosecution for an offence under the Act
can be i n s t i t u t e d 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. 138
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.139 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.140
The power to implead the manufacturer, distributor or dealer can,
however, be exercised during the trial of the offence under the Act. 141 In
132.Supra note 1, sec. 20.
133. Id., proviso to sec. 20.
134. Id., sec. 20(2).
135. Id., sec. 20(3).
136. A.K. Roy v. State of Punjab, AIR 1986 SC 2160.
137. Food Inspector, Health Deptt., Chandigarh v. MA Krishna Dhaba, AIR 1994 SC 664.
138. Yamuna Sab v. State of Bihar, 1990 (2) FAC 16 (Pat).
139. Id., sec. 20 A.
140. Radha Krishna Nair v. Food Inspector, 1989 (1) FAC 234.
141. MA. TJjakurDas Babu Ram v. State ofHimachal Pradesh, 1989 (1) FAC 343.

82

A TREATISE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

M/s Omprakash Shivprakash v. K.I. Kuriakose,142 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. 143 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. 144
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.145
Regarding the carrying into execution of all or any of the provisions of
this Act the central government is empowered to give necessary directions
to state government and the state governments are bound to comply with
such directions. 146
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 sub
committees 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

142.(2000) 1SCJ518.
143. Supra note 1, sec. 20AA.
144. Id., sec. 21.
145. Id., sec. 22.
146. Id., sec. 22A.

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954

83

with diverse matters of fixing standards of quality of numerous articles of

food, collection of samples, use of preservatives and flavouring 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 r e p o r t s the D e p a r t m e n t of P r e v e n t i o n of F o o d
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.147

147.71K Times ofIndia, "Delhi Times", p.l (November 4, 2003).