SOCIO ECONOMIC

OFFENCES
UNIT-2
Adulteration

Topic 2.1
Prevention of Food Adulteration

Mr. Anant Singhal

Assistant Professor
DME Law School
 Suggested Readings
• Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955
• Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
 Objective
• To understand adulteration and its effect
• To have an idea about FSSAI, its power and
functions
• Study case laws related to food adulteration
to know the gravity of crime.
• To critically analyse the Act
 Constitutional Relevance
• The constitution, Part 4 of the Indian constitution provides for the
directive principles of state policy, under which the Indian government
both at the center as well as at the state level has the obligation or a duty
to protect and preserve the public health which includes more importance
to the women and the child welfare.
 Food related Laws
• Indian Penal Code contained provisions to take care of noxious
food. Section 272 and 273 dealt with the adulteration of foods and drinks
to make them noxious, and the sale of such noxious drinks. Thus
adulteration is a crime under IPC punishable with imprisonment of six
months with a fine up to Rs.1000. However, the crime under IPC arises
only when the food article which is adulterated has become noxious.
• Along with this, different states had different laws enacted to prevent
the adulteration of foods. Thus, it made it difficult for the
implementation authorities, as different territories dealt with different
laws for the same subject.
• Therefore in 1954, the central government consolidated legal provisions
and enacted the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It repealed
all the laws regarding adulteration which were in force at that time.
• The main objective of the PFA was to prevent ill-health of the consumer
due to adulteration, protect the nutritional standard of a foodstuff by
regulating and restricting the addition of the substitute substances.
• These laws applied both to indigenously made food and imported food.
Rules were framed by the ‘Central Committee for Food Standards‘ from
time to time to make the Act more stringent.
• Thus the Act was amended in 1964, 1976, and later in 1986. Later there
were several defects found in PFA thus to tackle the problems the
central government consolidated the provisions of food safety acts and
enacted the Food Safety and Standard Act in 2006 (FSSA).
• The PFA act was repealed and several other Acts such as the Milk and
Milk Products Order, 1992, the Fruit Products Order, 1955, the Meat
Food Products Order, 1973, etc got repealed.
• Currently, the laws which are in force are:
• Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
• Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food
Businesses) Regulation, 2011.
• Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labeling) Regulation, 2011.
• Food Safety and Standards (Laboratory and Sampling Analysis)
Regulation, 2011.
• Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food
Additives) Regulation, 2011.
 What is Food?
• Sec 3 (j) ―Food: means any substance, whether processed, partially processed
or unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption and includes
primary food to the extent defined in clause (zk), genetically modified or
engineered food or food containing such ingredients, infant food, packaged
drinking water, alcoholic drink, chewing gum, and any substance, including
water used into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment but
does not include any animal feed, live animals unless they are prepared or
processed for placing on the market for human consumption, plants, prior to
harvesting, drugs and medicinal products, cosmetics, narcotic or
psychotropic substances: Provided that the Central Government may declare,
by notification in the Official Gazette, any other article as food for the
purposes of this Act having regards to its use, nature, substance or quality;
• (zk) ―primary food means an article of food, being a produce of agriculture or
horticulture or animal husbandry and dairying or aquaculture in its natural
form, resulting from the growing, raising, cultivation, picking, harvesting,
collection or catching in the hands of a person other than a farmer or
fisherman;
 What is Food Adulteration?
• Section 3(a) ‘Adulterant’ “Any material which is or could be
employed for making the food unsafe or sub-standard or
misbranded or containing extraneous matter”
• Food Adulteration can be defined as the practice of
adulterating food or contamination of food materials by adding
a few substances, which are collectively called adulterants.
• Adulterants are the substance or poor quality products added
to food items for economic and technical benefits.
• Addition of these adulterants reduces the value of nutrients in
food and also contaminates the food, which is not fit for
consumption.
• These adulterants can be available in all food products which
we consume daily, including dairy products, cereals, pulses,
grains, meat, vegetables, fruits, oils, beverages, etc.
 Why is Food Adulteration done?
• Practised as a part of the business strategy.
• An imitation of some other food substance.
• Lack of knowledge of proper food consumption.
• To increase the quantity of food production and sales.
• Increased food demand for a rapidly growing population.
• To make maximum profit from food items by fewer investments.
 Methods of Food Adulteration

• Here is a list of most common adulterants which have been added

• Adding certain chemicals for faster ripening of fruits.
• Mixing of decomposed fruits and vegetables with the good ones.
• Adding certain natural and chemical dyes to attract consumers.
• Mixing of clay, pebbles, stones, sand, and marble chips, to the grains,
pulses and other crops.
• Cheaper and inferior substances are added wholly or partially with the
good ones to increase the weight or nature of the product.
• Adulteration is an illegal practice of adding raw and other cheaper
ingredients to excellent quality products to increase the quantity. Having
this adulterated food is highly toxic and leads to several health issues,
including certain nutrition deficiency diseases, kidney disorders, and
failure of an individual’s organ systems, including heart, kidney and liver.
Purpose of the Act
 Establishment of various authorities and their
responsibilities
• The FSSA establishes various authorities for the effective
implementation of the provisions of the Act.
• Food Safety and Standard Authority of India (FSSAI) is established under
Section 4 of the Act. It is the most important authority which supervises
and regulates food safety and standards.
– The Act provides that its head office shall be in Delhi.
– Moreover, it can also establish offices in any other place.
– FSSAI is a body corporate having perpetual succession, common
seal and the right to own and dispose of property in its own name.
Like any other body corporate, it can sue and be sued in its own
name.
– It consists of a chairperson and 22 members selected by a Selection
Committee constituted by the Central Government.
– The Act also provides for the appointment of Chief Executive Officer
by the Central Government. He is the legal representative of the
Food Authority.
 Regulatory body
• FSSAI i.e. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India.
• It is an autonomous statutory body that maintains the food
safety and standards in India.
• FSSAI is administered by the Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare.
• FSSAI was set up in 2008 for the proper monitoring of food
hygiene and quality in India.
• It was functional from 5th August 2011 and ever since has
been responsible for managing food safety in our country.
• The FSSAI has its headquarters at New Delhi. The authority
also has 6 regional offices located in Delhi, Guwahati,
Mumbai, Kolkata, Cochin, and Chennai.
• The Act provides that the Food Authority shall establish various other
authorities.
– A Central Advisory Committee for ensuring cooperation between
the Food Authority and the enforcement agencies.
– Scientific Panels in order to deliberate on certain matters in
consultation with representatives of the concerned industry along
with consumer representatives.
– Scientific Committee to advice the Food Authority on various issues
by giving their scientific opinion.
• The Act empowers the State Government to appoint a Commissioner of
Food Safety for the State for effective implementation of the provisions
at the State level.
– The Commissioner of Food Safety is given the authority to appoint a
Designated Officer for each district.
– The Commissioner is also empowered to appoint Food Safety
Officers.
 Overview of Act
• Section 4 to 17 under Chapter 2 of the Food safety act, 2006
provides for Establishment and composition of Food safety
and standard authority of India.
• Section 4 talks about the union government’s power to
establish an authority for the purposes and functions stated
under the act, whose functions and duties have been
provided under section 16 of the act – which includes
regulation and monitoring of activities of registered
manufacturers.
• The food authority shall have a head office in Delhi and shall
also have at other places within the territory of India.
• Section 5 deals with the composition of such authority, which
is of twenty-two, and one-third of that will be represented by
women.
• Apart from this, section 18 under chapter 3 of the act provides for the
general principles that are to be followed for the administration of the act.
These principles form the basis for the state, union governments, and food
authorities to perform their function to protect human lives and also the
interests of the consumers as a whole by ensuring safe and fair practices at
every point in the supply chain.
• Section 18(3) states that there the provisions of this section shall not be
applicable to the farmers, fishermen, or any other persons who form part of
farmers and are notified by the authority.
• As part of general provisions relating to food articles, section 19 under
chapter 4 states that none of the articles of food shall contain any food
additive or processing aid unless and until the same is in accordance with the
provisions of the act.
• Lastly and most importantly, chapter 7 of the act provides for enforcement of
the act, which gives certain responsibilities to the authorities for the
performance of the same, which includes the duty of registration and
providing the licenses to the manufacturers of food articles. It also provides
for the penalties in case of violation of the provisions of the act under
sections 33 to 35.

•
 Licensing and Registration
• Section 31 deals with licensing and registration of food business.
• It prohibits any person to operate any food business without a license.
– The license can be obtained by applying to the Designated Officer.
– The Designated Officer has been empowered by the Act to either grant or reject
the license. Such rejection is in the interest of health and safety of the public.
– However, such rejection is to be made only after allowing the applicant to be heard
and the reasons for such rejection has to be recorded.
– The Act also lays down that if the Designated Officer has neither accepted nor
rejected the application, the applicant may start his business on expiry of two
months from the making of such application.
– The Commissioner of Food Safety is given the authority to hear all the appeals
against the rejection of license.
• There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. The Act exempts certain people
from the requirement of obtaining a license.
– A petty manufacturer engaged in manufacturing or selling of food products.
– A petty retailer, hawker, itinerant vendor or a temporary stall holder or small-scale
or cottage or such other industries relating to food business or tiny food business
operator.[3]
• However, they still have to get them registered with the appropriate authority.
•
 Offences and Penalties
• Section 48 lays down the provision of offences. It provides the circumstances
where a person shall be liable for rendering any food item injurious by the
various means such as adding to it an article or substance or removing certain
elements from the food which results in deterioration of its quality. FSSA
provides for penalties and punishments for contravening the provisions of the
Act.
• The Act consists of a comprehensive list of offences in which the penalties shall
be imposed.
• A penalty for selling of food which is not of the quality as per the regulations
under the Act. The penalty, in this case, shall not exceed five lakh rupees.
• A penalty for manufacturing for sale, storing, selling, distributing, importing food
of sub-standard quality which may extend to five lakh rupees.
• A penalty for manufacturing for sale storing, selling, distributing or importing
misbranded food products which may extend to three lakh rupees.
• The Act prohibits misleading or deceptive advertisements and there is a penalty
for the same which may extend to ten lakh rupees.
• A penalty is also prescribed for manufacturing, storing, selling, distributing or
importing a food product containing extraneous material and such penalty may
extend to one lakh rupees.
• The Act imposes a penalty on the food business operator or importer who fails to
comply with the provisions of the Act which may extend to two lakh rupees.
• There is a penalty which may extend to one lakh rupees for manufacturing or
processing food in unhygienic or unhealthy conditions.
• The Act also imposes a penalty for the possession of adulterant.
• Further, the Act also lays down that if no separate penalty is provided and an act
is in contravention to the provisions or regulations of the Act, then a penalty shall
be imposed which may extend to two lakh rupees.
• Apart from penalties, there are punishments too which are laid down in the Act.
The term of imprisonment differs according to different categories.
• Manufacturing for sale or storing or selling or distributing or importing food
which is unsafe is punishable under the Act.
• The Food Safety Officer may seize food products and a person who interferes
with such seized items is liable for punishment.
• There is punishment for providing false or misleading information.
• Punishment is also laid down for obstructing or impersonating a Food Safety
Officer.
• The Act provides for compulsory obtaining of license with the exception in a few
cases and a case of non-compliance is punishable under the Act.
• There is a provision for punishment in case of subsequent offences under the Act.
• Chapter 10 talks about adjudication and powers of tribunal.
(sec 68-80)
• Sec 76 – Appeals: (1) Any person aggrieved by a decision or
order of a Special Court may, on payment of such fee as may
be prescribed by the Central Government and after depositing
the amount, if any, imposed by way of penalty, compensation
or damage under this Act, within forty-five days from the date
on which the order was served, prefer an appeal to the High
Court: Provided that the High Court may entertain any appeal
after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days, if it is
satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause
for filing the appeal within the said period.
• (2) An appeal preferred under this section shall be disposed of
by the High Court by a bench of not less than two judges.
• Chapter 11 deals with Budget and fInances.
• *Refer Bareact.
 Functions of FSSAI
• Setting Rules and Guidelines – which need to be followed by all food manufacturing
companies, keeping into consideration hygiene and food safety
• Granting License – To pursue any food related business, the owner needs to get a
certificate and license with the permission of FSSAI
• Test the Standard of Food- quality check
• Regular Audits – Proper inspection is done for food-producing and manufacturing
companies to ensure the standards are at par with the guidelines
• Spreading Food Safety Awareness – It is the responsibility of FSSAI to spread
awareness and inform the citizens about the importance of safe and hygienic food
consumption
• Maintain Records and Data – FSSAI also has the responsibility to maintain proper
records and data of all the registered organisations. Any violation of rules prescribed
by FSSAI can lead to the termination of the license
• Keeping the Government Updated – Any food safety-related threat must be
informed to the Government authorities for further action. Also, assist them in
framing food standard policies
•
 Important Initiatives by FSSAI
• Eat Right India – The aim is not just to provide food to one and all, but
to provide quality food to everyone. With this initiative, FSSAI intends
to make good quality food accessible to every citizen of the country
• Clean Street Food – This involves training the street food vendors and
making them aware of the violations as per the FSS Act 2006. This will
also help in the social and economic upliftment of street food vendors
• Diet4Life – This is another initiative taken by FSSAI, to spread
awareness about metabolic disorders.
• Save Food, Share Food, Share Joy – Encouraging people to avoid food
wastage and promote food donation. Through this, FSSAI intends to
connect food-collecting agencies with the food-producing companies
and share the food with the ones in need
• Apart from this, the first-ever World Food Safety Day was celebrated
on June 7, 2019, by FSSAI, acknowledging the contribution of states,
food businesses, and individuals in maintaining food safety.
 Case Laws
• In this case, Ram Dayal And Ors. v.
Emperor (1923), the accused was selling ghee
with a mixture of pig fat. The Privy Council
held that the mixing of pig fat with the ghee is
noxious to the religious feelings of the Hindus
and Mohammedans but it would not come
under the expression “noxious as food”.
Noxious includes “ unwholesomeness or
injurious to health but not repugnant to one’s
feeling”.
 M/S PepsiCo India Holdings private limited and anr. v. State
Of U.P. (2010)

• In this case, the state government filed an FIR against the

Company under Section 272/273 of IPC. This action of the
state was challenged by Pepsico India Holding.
• Their main contention was that section 272/273 of IPC was
repealed by the 2006 Act. In the case of food adulteration and
food safety, the 2006 Act occupies the complete field.
• The High Court was of the view that the entire procedure and
inquiry was to be done under the 2006 Act and invoking the
provision of IPC would be unjustified.
• Thus applying the principle of generalia specialibus non
derogant, the provision of the Indian Penal Code was held
inapplicable by the High Court of Allahabad in this case.
 State of Maharashtra v. Sayyad Hassan Sayyed
Subham (2018)
• Supreme Court held that “if an act or an omission
constitutes an offence under two enactments and
prescribes punishment for the same.
• The offender may be prosecuted and punished under
either or both enactments but shall not be liable to
be punished twice for the same offence”.
• Thus just because the provisions of FSSA mention
penalties for the offence, it does not imply that one
cannot be prosecuted under IPC.
 Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of
India (2013)
• The writ petitioner alleged the adulteration of soft drinks.
• The Supreme Court observed that people are protected
under Article 21 against the hazardous and injurious food
article and it is the duty of the state to ensure such rights are
protected under Article 47.
• It was held that the number of insecticides and pesticides
contained in the food article was beyond the tolerable
amount which is not good for children’s health and therefore
directed the state authorities to effectively implement the
statutory scheme and penal provisions and directed the food
authority to conduct periodical monitoring of fruits and
vegetable markets while taking into consideration the
prevalent national and international standards and practices
and shall be guided by the general principle of food safety.
 Nestle India Limited v. The Food Safety and Standards
Authority of India (2015) (Maggi Case)
• At the end of May 2015, India’s Food safety
administration (FDA) ordered Nestlé India to recall its
popular 2-minute Maggi noodles after tests showed
that the product contained high levels of lead and
MSG.
• 21st May 2015 – Indian state orders recall of Maggi
noodles Indian food inspectors order Nestlé India to
recall a batch of Maggi Noodles from the northern
Indian state of Uttar Pradesh claiming that tests have
found Maggi instant noodles "unsafe and hazardous"
and accused Nestlé of failing to comply with food
safety law.
• Nestlé response: The initial response from the global
FMCG Company rejected the accusation that the noodles
were unsafe and said on their website and social media
accounts that there had been no order to recall any
products
• A statement on their website said that “The quality and
safety of our products are the top priorities for our
Company. We have in place strict food safety and quality
controls at out Maggi factories… We do not add MSG to
Maggi Noodles, and glutamate, if present, may come from
naturally occurring sources.
• We are surprised with the content supposedly found in
the sample as we monitor the lead content regularly as a
part of the regulatory requirements.”
• On the official Maggi noodles India Facebook page,
Twitter and website, Nestlé states that extensive
testing reveals no excess lead in Maggi noodles.
• On 4th June – Nestlé backtracks and recalls all Maggi
noodles from India After re-assuring customers that
its noodles are safe, the brand does a U-turn and
decides to recall Maggi noodles produced in India.
• 16th June – Nestlé to destroy withdrawn noodles
Nestlé decided to destroy more than £32million
($50million) worth of Maggi Noodles in India after
they were deemed unsafe by regulators.
• 3rd July – Testing on Maggi noodles abroad finds
levels of lead are within food safety levels .
• After the food safety scare in India Maggi noodles
have been tested in other parts of the world to
reassure consumers that they are safe. Results
from noodles tested in the UK found that levels of
lead in the product are within EU levels. Shortly
after the UK results were published, Canada also
cleared Maggi noodles as safe.
• And it was also realized that the laboratories
where the products were tested for high quantities
of lead, were not accredited and recognised under
the Act, and relying on their test result would not
be justified.
 Swami Achyutanand Tirth & Ors v. Union Of
India & Ors. (2016)
• In the petitioner filed public interest litigation
highlighting the concern about the growing sale of
adulterated and synthetic milk, all over India. Thus
Public interest litigation was filed to seek direction
from the state and central government to take
appropriate steps to curb the activity. Therefore the
court issued the following directions:
• The Union and state governments should take
appropriate steps to implement the FSSA in a more
effective way.
• To inform the dairy owners and retailers that stringent
steps would be taken if any chemical adulterant is
found in the milk.
• The State Food Safety Authority (SFSA) should identify high-risk areas and
times when there are high chances of ingesting milk and milk products, and
collect samples from those areas.
• State Food Safety Authorities should ensure that all laboratories should
obtain NABL (National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration
Laboratories) accreditation along with having well-equipped lab testing
infrastructure and technical persons to handle it.
• Measures should be taken by the SFSA and district authorities for a sampling of
the products including spot testing for conducting qualitative tests of adulteration
in the food.
• Snap short survey tests should be conducted periodically at the state and national
levels.
• State Level Committee headed by the Chief Secretary or the Secretary of Dairy
Department and District Level Committee headed by the concerned District
Collector shall be constituted to take a review of the work done in curbing the
adulteration by the authorities.
•
• The concerned state department shall set up a website that
will be responsible for creating awareness about complaint
mechanism functioning and the responsibilities of food
safety authorities. The website will have the contact details
of food safety officers and a toll-free telephone number.
Directing the concerned government to put a check on
corruption and unethical practices by Food Authorities and
their officers by evolving the complaint mechanism
• The State/ food authority/ Commissioner of food safety
shall inform the general public about the ill effect on health
due to adulteration, educate the children through
workshops, etc. in determining adulterated components in
food. In short, it’s their duty to increase awareness among
people.
 Cadbury Chocolate Worm Controversy
• On October 2003, just a month before Diwali, the Food and Drug
Administration Commissioner received complaints about infestation in two
bars of Cadbury Dairy Milk,
• In defense, Cadbury issued a statement that the infestation was not
possible at the manufacturing stage and poor storage at the retailers was
the most likely cause of the reported case of worms. But the FDA didn’t buy
that. FDA commisioner, Uttam Khobragade told CNBC-TV18, “It was
presumed that worms got into it at the storage level, but then what about
the packing – packaging was not proper or airtight, either ways it’s a
manufacturing defect with unhygienic conditions or improper packaging.”
A focused and intense communications program was implemented over
the next six months to rebuild credibility and restore confidence among the
key stakeholders. The results:
• In media, the key message that infestation was a storage-linked problem,
not manufacturing related, found widespread acceptance. Across the
board, media carried Cadbury’s point-of-view on the issue.
• Sales volumes climbed back to almost to
pre-crisis levels eight weeks after the launch
of new packaging — a concrete step taken
by the company to minimize the incidence
of infestation. This reflected consumer
confidence in the brand and the company.
• There was significant upward movement in
ratings amongst consumers on parameters
like company’s image, responsiveness of
company and behavioral parameters like
intention to buy Cadbury chocolates.
 Loopholes in the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006
• The unorganised sectors are ignored in the Act. It contains petty
manufacturers, hawkers, retailers which contribute a lot to the
unorganised sector. It mainly emphasises the processing industry. The
primary sector is included in the Act but the agricultural sector producing
primary food is ignored.
• The financial supply is not adequate. The majority of the money allocated
was used to develop the infrastructure of the food authority and the
remaining was utilized for the establishment of laboratories, which are
negligible. The lack of adequate food testing laboratories to scrutinize the
food manufacturing and processing industries which ensures the hygiene
quality, safety in the food.
• The food authority is understaffed and underfunded and is not able to
pace up with the increasing industry of food. Staff is filled with
bureaucrats and non-technical persons are holding some important office
not knowing how to handle some complex issues associated with the
food. At the ground level, the food authorities are not competent to
monitor the situation. There is also a shortage of licensing officers.
Provisions under the Act which authorize the grant of a license, the
penalty may lead to corruption.
• There are many undefined words and terms in the Act, which
unnecessarily increase the litigation period. The limitation time
is only one year, before its expiration the case has to be
brought under the authority notice. Adopting international
standards without realising the compliance capacity of the
domestic food sector and the implementation of these
international standards becomes challenging.
• There are doubts about the standard procedures followed by
the laboratories while scrutinizing the products. This came into
focus when lead and monosodium glutamate were found in
Maggi. States like Maharashtra, Punjab, and Kerala banned the
product, however, the amount of lead found in Maggi in states
like Karnataka, West Bengal, Goa, and Chhattisgarh were under
safe levels. Thus this questions the confusion around the
procedures and standards defined in different states.
 Next Topic
• Control of Spurious Drugs
• The Drugs and Cosmetics Act