UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES, CHANDIGARH

SOCIO ECONOMIC OFFENCES

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT,1954

SUBMITTED TO: - SUBMITTED BY: -

Dr. Sonalpreet Himanshu Singla

ROLL NO: 117/19

B.A. LLB. (10 TH SEM)

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to give my special thanks to our Director Prof. (Dr.) Shruti Bedi for
providing me with the opportunity to learn and grow through this internship
programme.
Secondly, I would like to extend my gratitude to our mentor Dr. Sonalpreet for
constantly supporting and guiding me throughout the programme and solving all my
queries.

Himanshu Singla (117/19)

B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)
10th Semester

2|Page
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 4
History of the Act............................................................................................................................................ 5
Aims and Purpose of the Act .......................................................................................................................... 5
DETAILS OF THE PFA ACT .................................................................................................................................... 6
Objective of the act ........................................................................................................................................ 6
DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
Definition of Food (SEC 2(V)) .......................................................................................................................... 6
Meaning of Adulterant (SEC 2(i)).................................................................................................................... 6
Concept of Adulteration (SEC 2(ia))................................................................................................................ 7
Sale of Certain Admixtures Prohibited ........................................................................................................... 8
Misbranded (SEC 2(ix)) ................................................................................................................................... 8
THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE FOR FOOD STANDARDS (SEC 3) .............................................................................. 9
CENTRAL FOOD LABORATORY .......................................................................................................................... 10
RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORT AND MANUFACTURE OF CERTAIN FOOD ITEMS .................................................. 10
PUBLIC ANALYST ............................................................................................................................................... 11
FOOD INSPECTOR ............................................................................................................................................. 12
PURCHASER'S RIGHT TO HAVE FOOD ANALYSED ............................................................................................. 15
PENALITIES ........................................................................................................................................................ 17
MISCELLANEOUS SECTIONS .............................................................................................................................. 18
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................... 21
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................................. 22

3|Page
INTRODUCTION
As we all know that not only today but from the time immemorial since the start of life on earth
Food is one of the basic necessities for sustenance of not only human life but for every being. For
human beings, pure, fresh and healthy diet is most essential for the health. It is no wonder to say
that health of the citizens is national wealth.

Adulteration of food-stuffs was so rampant, widespread and persistent that nothing short of a
somewhat drastic remedy in the form of a comprehensive legislation became the need of the hour.
Adulteration of food-stuffs and other goods’ is now included in the Concurrent List (III) in the
Constitution of India. Due to the lack of uniformity in State legislations passed at different times
without mutual consultation, the Centre enacted the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 deals with eradication of the evil of food
adulteration, prohibition of adulteration and misbranding of food stuff, regulation of consumer-
supplier relations and prescribing punishment for the adulterators because there existed an acute
need to curtail this anti-social and economic evil which was widespread and rampant in the society.
This Act attempts to ensure that the food is prepared, packed and stored under sanitary conditions
and accordingly made available to the people.

It came into effect from 1st June, 1955 and extends to the whole of India. It’s main intention is to
curb this evil at it’s root level itself, i.e., to curb the food adulteration activities of the small vendors
or retailers in the society. The compliances under this Act are strict in nature and any non-
compliance results into prosecution.

Adulteration is the fraudulent addition to any substance of another, for the sake of increased sale
or profit. The oxford dictionary defines it as making some substance impure by adding any
impurities or removing a vital component. It means the reduction in quality of the food substances
either by addition of foreign substances. A substance added to a food-item to reduce its quality in
order to increase its quantity is called as an adulterant. For eg., Mustard is invariably adulterated
with flour or argemone seed; Pepper is largely adulterated with meal or starch, gypsum, and dirt of
any kind, to give bulk and weight etc. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 takes
cognizance of evil of adulteration in India.

4|Page
History of the Act
Food adulteration was initially dealt with under IPC,1860, Sec 269 to 275. The Code has
distinguished such acts into four categories. viz. (i) spreading of infections (Sec.269 to 271); (ii)
Adulteration of Food, drink and drugs (Sec.272 to 276) (iii) Fouling of water (Sec.277) and (iv)
making atmosphere noxious to health (Sec.273). However, post independence, in order to bring
uniformity in all the laws of States, a consolidated Act was passed by Parliament after placing the
subject in the concurrent list of Constitution of India. The degree of the menace by the time of
enactment and inadequacy of the law had) been felt by the legislatures. The Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act 37 on of 1954 came into force on 1st June, 1955.

Aims and Purpose of the Act

The primary object of the legislation is to protect the health and safety of the people and eradicate
the evil of adulteration.

The object of the Act is not to ‘punish’ but to ‘prevent’ adulteration and raise branding of foods as
provided therein.

The provisions of the law are directed for the purpose of securing purity of food and to inform
purchasers of what they are buying and they must be construed to effect such purpose. To achieve
such an object, the Act has provided adequate punishment to food adultetrators and made the
obligations widely comprehensive and has attempted to make it impossible for them to escape
liability.

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Surja Ram, the object of the Act was explained as follows:
The object and the purpose of the Act are to eliminate the dangers to human life from sale of
unwholesome article of food...it is enacted to curb the widespread evil of food adulteration and is
legislative measure for social defense. It is intended to suppress a socio-economic mischief, an evil
that attempts to poison, for monetary gains, a very source of substance of life and well being of the
community.

The Supreme Court of India in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroomal (1976), observed
that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was enacted to curb and remedy the wide spread
evil of food adulteration, and to ensure the sale of wholesome food to the people. It was further
5|Page
observed that wherever possible, without unreasonable stretching or straining the language of such
a statute should be construed in a manner which would (a) suppress the mischief; (b) advance the
remedy; (c) promote its object (d) prevent its subtle evasion; and (e) foil its artful circumvention.

DETAILS OF THE PFA ACT

The salient features of the PFA Act includes objective, definition of food, meaning of adulterant,
concept of adulteration, misbranded items, sale of certain admixtures, relevant committees,
analysts, procedure for sampling & analysis, penalties and important miscellaneous provisions. For
the benefit of a learner like you, the small description of the major features of the Act are given
below in a simplified way so that it is easier for you to understand.

Objective of the act

The main objectives of the act are:
1) to make provision for the prevention of adulteration of food;
2) to protect the public from poisonous and harmful foods;
3) to prevent the sale of substandard foods; and
4) to protect the interests of the consumers by eliminating fraudulent practices.

DEFINITIONS
Clear definitions are given for terms such as food, adulterant, misbranded items, manufacture, sale,
package etc. to describe the matters clear and simple. However, only some definitions which are
more relevant are given below for your understanding of the Act clearly.

Definition of Food (SEC 2(V))

a) Any article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human
food;
b) Any flavouring matter or condiments; and
c) Any other article which the Central Government may having regard to its use, nature, substance
or quality, declare, by notification in the official gazette as food for the purpose of this Act.

Meaning of Adulterant (SEC 2(i))

Adulterant is defined as “any material which is or could be employed for the purposes of
adulteration”.
6|Page
Concept of Adulteration (SEC 2(ia))
An article of food considered to be adulterated:
a) if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser
and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented
to be;
b) if the article contains any other substance which affects, or if the article is so processed as to
affect, injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;
c) if 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;
d) if any constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted so as to affect injuriously
the nature, substance or quality thereof ;
e) if the article had been prepared, packed or kept under unsanitary conditions whereby it has
become contaminated or injurious to health;
f) if 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;
g) if the article is obtained from a diseased animal;
h) if the article contains any poisonous or other ingredient which renders it injurious to health;
i) if 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;
j) if 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;
k) if the article contains any prohibited preservative or permitted preservative in excess of the
prescribed limits;
l) if 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; and
m) if 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:

Provided that, where the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the
7|Page
prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of
variability in either case, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency,
then, such article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this sub-clause.

Sale of Certain Admixtures Prohibited

To make things clear, admixtures of many items are clearly prohibited. For eg. Sale by himself or
by his servant or agent is prohibited in case of:-
a) Cream which has not been prepared exclusively from milk or which contains less than 25% of
milk fat.
b) Milk which contains added water.
c) Ghee which contains any added matter not exclusively derived from milk fat.
d) Selling skimmed milk as whole milk.
e) Mixture of two or more edible oils as an edible oil.
f) Vanaspati to which ghee or any other substance has been added.
g) Any article of food which contains any artificial sweetener beyond the prescribed limit.
h) Turmeric containing any foreign substance.
i) Mixture of coffee and other substance except chicory.
j) Dahi or curd not made out of milk.
k) Milk or milk products containing constituents other than of milk.

Misbranded (SEC 2(ix))

An article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded:
a) If 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 of which it is sold, and is not plainly and conspicuously labelled so
as to indicate its true character;
b) If it is falsely stated to be the product of any place or country;
c) If it is sold by a name which belongs to another article of food;
d) If it is so coloured, flavoured or coated, powdered or polished; 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;
e) If false claims are made for it upon the label or otherwise;
f) If, when 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
not conspicuously and correctly stated on the outside thereof within the limits of variability
8|Page
prescribed under this Act;
g) If 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 if the package is otherwise deceptive with respect to its contents;
h) If 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) If 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;
j) If 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
there under;
k) If it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or rules made there under.

THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE FOR FOOD STANDARDS (SEC 3)

The Central Government shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, constitute
a Committee called the Central Committee for Food Standards to advise the Central Government
and the State Governments on matters arising out of the administration of this Act and to carry out
the other functions assigned to it under this Act.

The Committee shall consist of the following members, namely:

a) The Director-General, Health Services, ex-officio, who shall be the Chairman;
b) The Director of the Central Food Laboratory or, in a case where more than one Central Food
Laboratory is established, the Directors of such Laboratories, ex-officio;
c) Two experts nominated by the Central Government;
d) One representative each of the Departments of Food and Agriculture in the Central Ministry of
Food and Agriculture and one representative each of the Central Ministries of Commerce, Defence,
Industry and 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; five representatives nominated by the Central Government to
represent the consumers, interests, one of whom shall be from the hotel industry;
9|Page
h) One representative of the medical profession nominated by the Indian Council of Medical
Research;
i) 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 (36 of 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. The central committee may appoint sub-committees to discharge
functions as may be delegated to them. The task of appointing a secretary and other staff for the
committee has been assigned to the central government. The committee can make its own bye-
laws to regulate its functioning.

CENTRAL FOOD LABORATORY

Section 4: This section provides for the establishment of Central Food Laboratories (CFL). At
present there are four such labs: one each at i) Kolkata & (ii) Ghaziabad (under Central
Government), (iii) Public Health (PH), LAB, Pune and (iv) Central Food Technological Research
Institute (CFTRI), Mysore, notified as CFL for the purposes of the Act.

CFL's are the appellate laboratories for the following purposes:

i) for the analysis of samples received from courts under section 13 (2) (b) and Issue
certificates of analysis which supersedes the report of Public Analysts [Section 13 (3).
The jurisdiction of these labs for various areas are specified in Table I of Rule 3 (2) of
PFA Rules.
ii) for the analysis of import products sent by the customs [Section 6 (2)]. The areas in
respect of local areas assigned to various labs are provided in Table Il of rule 3 (2) of
PFA Rules.
iii) for any other matter as considered necessary by Central Government [Section 4 (2)])

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
10 | P a g e
prohibited under the Sea Customs Act. 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 Central Food Laboratory and, if required by him, send
samples of the suspected article of food to the said laboratory.

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.

PUBLIC ANALYST
Section 8: This section empowers the Central Government/ State Governments to appoint Public
Analyst having prescribed qualifications (Rule 6). The primary task of public analyst is to analyze
the samples sent by the food inspectors, consumer organizations or others as provided in the state
rules (Section 24) on payment of fees or otherwise as provided in the state rules by the state
governments.
The territorial jurisdictions of work of Public Analysts are prescribed in the State Rules.

Section 13 Report of Analyst: As per this section, the report of Public Analyst, prima facie forms
the basis for further action by the authorities. The report is sent to Local (Health) Authority, who
shall forward a copy of the report to the vendor and to the manufacturers/ distributors/ dealer who
has supplied the material to the vendor under warranty (Section 14 A).
As per section 13(2) the court has power to call for the part of the sample from local (Health)
Authority, if so desired by the manufacturer/distributor/dealer for getting it analyzed by Central
Food Laboratory and after ascertaining the intactness of the seals, send the same to Central Food
Laboratory for final opinion which supersedes the public analyst report [Section 13(3)].

In Motumal v. State of M.P., the petitioner was found guilty of selling adulterated peppermint to
11 | P a g e
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 Court in Hanuman v. State of Rajasthan. 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

FOOD INSPECTOR
Appointment- Food Inspector is appointed by the Central Government or State Government for
Local Areas identified. (SEC 9)

Qualification-
(a) A medical officer in-charge of Health Administration of Local Area or
(b) A graduate in medicine with a minimum of one month training in inspection of food sampling
work in an institution approved by Central Government or State Government or
(c) A graduate in science with chemistry/agriculture/pharmacy/ veterinary science/food
technology/dairy technology/public health/diploma holder in food or dairy technology or
equivalent qualification and a minimum of 3 months satisfactory practical training in inspection of
food and training approved by Central Government or State Government.

Duties of Food Inspectors

1. To inspect establishment for licence for manufacture, storage or sale of food article and satisfy
that the conditions and provisions of the Act are complied with
2. To make enquiries on receipt of complaints about the quality of food and conduct inspection
accordingly.
12 | P a g e
3. To procure the sample of food and send to public analyst as and when required.
4. To investigate into matters of specific complaints given in writing.
5. To maintain the records of inspection properly and keep inform higher authorities about
inspection.

Powers of Food Inspectors (SEC 10)

• The food inspector can prohibit sale of food article in public interest for a specific period,
• can also stop the vehicles carrying adulterated or misbranded food,
• seize the samples of food articles prepared in contravention with the provisions of the Act,
• enter the premises within the reasonable time of business and seize the sample or
• break open any package containing adulterated or misbranded food.

The constitutionality of the powers vested in the food inspector was challenged in S.Narasinqa
Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1964) on the ground of arbitrariness which is being abused
imperiling the trade and business in as much as restrictions of defences under section 19 of the Act
are discriminatory. The contention was rejected on the face of various safeguards provided for the
accused including penalty on Food Inspector for vexatious and unreasonable prosecutions, or
unwarranted actions injuring the person.

Procedure to be followed by food Inspectors (SEC 11)

When a food inspector takes a sample of food for analysis, he shall—
 give notice in writing then and thereof his intention to have it so analysed to the person from
whom he has taken the sample and to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars
have been disclosed under section 14A the person from whom he purchased the article of food.
 except in special cases provided by rules under this Act, divide the sample then and there into
three parts and mark and seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits
 he shall then take the signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has
been taken in such place and in such manner as may be prescribed.

Provided that where such person refuses to sign or put his thumb impression the food inspector
shall 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 or thumb impression of such person.

13 | P a g e
 Thereafter, the Food Inspector shall send one of the parts for analysis to the public analyst under
intimation to the Local (Health) Authority; and send the remaining two parts to the Local (Health)
Authority for the purposes of sub-section (2) of this section and sub sections (2A) and (2E) of
section 13, i.e. to institute prosecution proceedings against the guilty persons if the food item is
found to be adulterated, sending them a copy of the result and informing them that they may within
10 days of receiving the report apply to court to get the sample of the article of food kept by the
Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.

Note :-If the sample sent to the public analyst under sub-clause (I) of clause (c) of sub-section (1)
is lost or damaged, the Local (Health) Authority shall, on a requisition made to it by the public
analyst or the food inspector dispatch one of the parts of the sample sent to it under subclause (ii)
of the said clause (c) to the public analyst for analysis.

 Within seven days after the receipt of the report of the public analyst the article of food seized
under section 10(4), shall be produced before a magistrate.
 If it appears to the magistrate on taking such evidence as he may deem necessary—

Case 1- That the article of food produced before him under sub-section (4) is adulterated or
misbranded, he may order it—
(i) to be forfeited to the Central Government, the State Government or the local authority,
as the case may be.
(ii) 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.
(iii) to be so disposed of as to prevent its being again exposed for sale or used for food under
its deceptive name.
(iv) to be returned to the owner, on his executing a bond with or without sureties, for being
sold under its appropriate name or, where the magistrate is satisfied that the article of
food is capable of being made to conform to prescribed standards for human
consumption after reprocessing, for being sold after reprocessing under the supervision
of such officer as may be specified in the order.

Case 2- The adulterant seized under section 10(6) and produced before him is apparently of a
kind which may be employed for purposes of adulteration and for the possession of which the
14 | P a g e
 manufacturer, distributor or dealer, as the case may be, is unable to account satisfactorily, he
may order it to be forfeited to the Central Government, the State Government or the local
authority, as the case may be.

Case 3- If it appears to the magistrate that any such—

a) article of food is not adulterated; or
b) adulterant which is purported to be an adulterant is not an adulterant.

The person from whose possession the article of food or adulterant was taken shall be entitled
to have it restored to him and it shall be in the discretion of the magistrate to award such person
from such fund as the State Government may direct in this behalf, such compensation not
exceeding the actual loss which he has sustained as the magistrate may think proper.

It is not necessary that the evidence of a food inspector must have corroboration from
independent witnesses. In State of U.P. v. Haniff 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 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. Thus, the courts have held that the food inspector should call one or
more persons present at the time of taking of a sample. There should be cogent reasons to
disbelieve his evidence.

PURCHASER'S RIGHT TO HAVE FOOD ANALYSED

Section 12 provides that 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 report of his analysis. 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.

15 | P a g e
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. 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.

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.

In Nand Kishore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 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.

In Munnalal v. State of M.P, 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.

16 | P a g e
PENALITIES
The Section 16 deals with the penalties as detailed below:

17 | P a g e
MISCELLANEOUS SECTIONS
Section 14 Issue of Warranty: This section provides that a manufacturer, distributor or dealer has
to give a warranty in writing to the vendor, which stands as a defence to vendor in case the same
is declared adulterate (Section 19) A cash memo bill is considered as a warranty.

Section 15 Report of Food Poisoning: As per this section, the Central/ State goverments may
require medical practitioners to report cases of food poisoning in their areas of jurisdiction.

Section 16A: Summary Trials: This section provides summary trials by Judicial Magistrates of
1 class or Metropolitan Magistrate who can pass maximumimprisonment of 1 year. Magistrate has
powers to try cases other than summary trials if he is of the opinion that the punishment higher
than 1 year is to be passed.

Section 17: Nomination by Company: As per this section, the companies can nominate a person
responsible for the business of the company and inform Local (Health) Authority of such
nominations with the written consent of the nominee.
The person so nominated is to inform Local (Health) Authority for cancelling his nomination when
he leaves the company or otherwise under intimation to the company. The nominee stands
responsible for any offence committed by the company.

Section 18: Forfeiture: As per this section, the articles of food, contravening the law, can be
forfeited by the concerned authorities. However, the court can allow reprocessing of such food
articles under the supervision of some officer if the same can be made to confirm to the standards
prescribed under law.

Section 19: A warranty under Section 14 from a licenced vendor stands as a defence in as a case
of prosecution, as per Section 19.

Section 20: Cognizance of offence: This section stipulates that a prosecution can be launched with
the written consent of a person authorized by Central/ State Government except in case of warranty
(Section 14/ 14A). However, a purchaser (Section 12) can directly make a complaint to the court
with a copy of the report of Public Analyst. A purchaser or recognized consumer associations (
Section 12) may also institute a prosecution in a court with copy of the report of the Public Analyst
18 | P a g e
along with the complaint.

Section 20A: Impleading Manufacturer: As per Section 20 A, a manufacturer, distributor or

dealer can be impleaded on the evidence adduced before the court, if such person is also connected
with the commission of the offence.

Section 21: Power of Magistrate: The Section 21 clearly stipulates that only the 15 class
Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate can pass any sentence under this Act except life
imprisonment or more than 6 years imprisonment.

Section 22: Protection to Government Officers if action is taken in good faith: As per this section,
legal proceedings cannot be initiated against government officers, if the action is taken in food
faith.
What is done in "Good Faith" : The term " Good Faith" is defined in the General Clauses Act (X
of 1897) under Section 3(22). As per this section " a thing shall be deemed to be done in "good
faith" where it is in fact done honestly, regardless of the fact whether it is done negligently or not"
The Section 52 of Indian Penal Code under describes action taken in good faith as "Nothing is said
to be done or believed in "good faith" which is done or believed without due care and attention.
The word "due care and attention' means that a person has to show not only that he had good
intention but also exercised such care and skill as the duty reasonably demanded for its due
discharge.

Section 22A: Direction by Central Government to be Complied with: As per this section, the
direction given by central government to State Governments should be complied with by State
Government.

Section 23: Powers of Central Government to make rules:

1. Defining standards of quality: The Rules (Appendix B) provide in detail the Standards of a
product in relation to quality parameters like fat content in different classes of milk or milk
products, ingredients to be used in different categories of food e.g. use of additives like colours,
preservatives, antioxidants, artificial sweeteners etc. and their maximum levels of use, the
requirements of nutrients in certain food viz. Infant food, infant milk substitutes characteristics to
detect adulteration, minimum juice content in fruit drinks etc.
19 | P a g e
2. To impose conditions for manufacture, distribution, sale, registration of premises conditions for
sale, licences etc. (Part IX - Rules 49,50, 51).
3. Trapecal labeling provisions in case of fortied od ac. (Kale 32 to 45)
4. Qualifications, powers and duties of Food Inspectors and Public Analysts-(Rules 6 to 9)
5. To denin rat tie or labor inis where for as can a alose
6. To restrict use of certain ingredients etc.
7. To prescribe licencing conditions for import of foods, to check the quality of imports to ensure/
verify that such imports conform to PFA Act/ Rules etc.
8. Procedure of drawing and dispatch of samples by a Food Inspector.
9. To provide methods of analysis for guidance of a public analyst.
10. To provide exemption to any article from provisions of the Act/ Rules subject to any conditions
deemed necessary.
11. To provide procedure of destruction etc. in case so ordered by the central government or an
authorized officer.
12. Any other action necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act.
The Rules under this Act are made with prior consultation of CCFS and previous publication in
the official gazette. The rules so made are to be placed before each house of parliament within time
period as prescribed in the Act (30 days at present). However, prior consultation with CCFS can
be dispensed with if matter is of urgent nature but committee to be consulted within a period of 6
months.

Section 24: Powers of State Governments:

This section empowers the state governments to frame rules and regulations after consultation with
CCFS and previous publications, for the following purposes:
1. Defining powers, jurisdictions and duties of Food (Health) Authority and Local (Health)
Authority.
2. Form, fees and conditions for licences for manufacture, storage, sale, and distribution of
articles of food.
3. Fees for analysis, apportionment (distribution) of fines between local authorities and others.
4. Delegation of powers to subordinate authorities by Food (Health) Authority.
5. Rules made by State Government to be laid before state legislatures.

20 | P a g e
 Section 25: As per Section 25, all corresponding laws/Acts in force in states/ union territories
stand repealed.

CONCLUSION
Adulteration of food remains one of the serious problems in India due to scarcity of 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 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 with diverse matters of fixing standards of quality of numerous articles
of food, collection of samples, use of preservatives and flavouring agents, licensing and labelling
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. So the system needs
to be overhauled at it earliest.

The Indian Government enacted a new food law known as the Food Safety and Standards Act,
2006 and to give effect to the provisions of this Act, Rules and Regulations have been made there
under known as the Food Safety and Standards Rules,2011 and Regulations 2011. The Act, Rules
and Regulations have come into force w.e.f. 5th August’2011.

This Food Safety Act consolidates all the previously existing laws relating to food and to establish
the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India for laying down science based standards for
articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import, to ensure
availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption. The Food Authority acts as a
single window to provide guidance and issue clarifications/advisories for all matters related to food
safety. It is a correction into all food laws prevailing in India.

21 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PROVISIONS
 The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
 The Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955
BOOKS
 H.L. Tiku, (2004), The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Central & State
Rules, with orders”, Delhi Law House, Delhi
 Dr. Rattan Singh and Dr. Varinder Negi, Socio Economic Offences, 2021 Edition,
Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad
WEBSITES
 https://www.lkouniv.ac.in/site/writereaddata/siteContent/202004061923053802Sanjana_
Mittal_Adulteration.pdf
 https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/10014/1/Unit%204.pdf
 https://ugcmoocs.inflibnet.ac.in/assets/uploads/1/175/5756/et/19200309050503034444.p
df
 https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/61875/1/UNIT%201%20Prevention%20of
%20Food%20Adlteration%20Act%20and%20Rules.pdf

22 | P a g e