IPC- Project Content Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr.No. TOPIC Pg.No.

i. COVER PAGE 1

ii. INDEX 2

iii.1. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3

iv.2. INTRODUCTION

4-7

v.3. LEGAL ANALYSIS

8-16

vi.4. ROLE OF JUDICIARY

17-19

viii. 5. COMPARITIVE STUDY 20-

ix. 6. CONCLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS 23-24

x. BIBLIOGRAPHY 25-26

1

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RELEVANCE OF THE PROJECT

The Law of Crimes I, includes studying, analysing and interpreting the topics of the Indian Penal

Code. This paper aims to carry out a research study pertaining to ‘Adulteration of Food and

Drugs’ and elucidate on how it is a crime against the society. The Adulteration of Food and Drugs

is a serious crime which invites punishment, and what qualifies as a crime is given in various

sections of the IPC. Food and drugs are essential for survival and thus affect every human being as

well as animals, adulteration in food and drugs is equivalent to risking peoples life and thus

qualifies as a heinous crime. Therefore it is important to study the provisions of the IPC pertaining

to this subject.

OBJECTIVE OF STUDY

The Objective of this study is to provide an intensive research and analysis of ‘Adulteration of

Food and Drugs' regarding its Technicalities, evolution, types, issues etc. These essential areas

have been studied in depth and briefed up in the project. It aims at exploring all aspects of

Adulteration. This project aims to study the rules and provisions of IPC.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

During the study of this project, the researchers seek to make an attempt to answer the following

questions:

1. What qualifies as Food?

2. What is adulteration.

3. What are the means and methods of adulterating food and making it unfit for consumption?

4. What are some of the most popular exapmples of food adulteration?

5. Provisions in the IPC relating to adulteration of food?

6. Other legal provisions and bodies to monitor and stop adulteration of food.

7. In what manner is it a crime against society and what can be done and is being done to hem

the tide of rampant adulteration of food?

LIMITATION OF RESEARCH

This project was subject to a couple of limitations. The project was restricted to a secondary

means of research, conducted only by means of books and the Internet, due to which certain

limitations are bound to creep in. A primary way of research could not be adopted for the project

due to the sensitivity of the project topic.

2

1. INTRODUCTION

Food is one of the basic necessities for sustenance of life. Pure, fresh and healthy diet is most

essential for the health of the people. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 resembled

the food standards and consumer health regime followed in the United Kingdom under the aegis of

the Food Safety Act, 1990. This is reflected in the analogous positions of public analyst, food

inspector and in the procedural similarities.

To understand what is adulteration, it is necessary to understand the meaning of the terms, food,

and adulteration.

Food: Any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink or that plants absorb in order to

maintain life and growth1

Adulteration: The act of rendering something poorrer in quality by adding another substance,

consequently making it harmful for human consumption2

An adulterant is a chemical substance which should not be contained within other substances (e.g.

food, beverages, and fuels) for legal or other reasons. The addition of adulterants is called

adulteration. The word is appropriate only when the additions are unwanted by the recipient.

Otherwise the expression would be food additive. Adulterants when used in illicit drugs are called

cutting agents, while deliberate addition of toxic adulterants to food or other products for human

consumption is known as poisoning.

History and Evolution of Food Adulteration

Initially, aduteration was unheard of as what was consumed was wholly sourced from nature,

Over time, the act of adulterating food for economic gain began to emerge. During the Middle

Ages, imported spices were quite valuable. Due to their high prices and limited supply, merchants

sometimes combined spices with numerous cheap substitutes such as ground nutshells, pits, seeds,

juniper berries, stones or dust. In response, trade guilds were formed to supervise the quality of

products and prevent the adulteration of food, and laws were drafted throughout Europe to

regulate the quality of bread, wine, milk, butter and meat. Following the Reformation, however,

the influence of guilds waned and, along with them, their laws. By the end of the 19 th centruy,

adulteraton of food was rampant, however, concrete laws were not in place to check the same. It

was not until 1958 that manufacturers were required to conduct the testing necessary to prove a

substance’s safety prior to being introduced to the public.

1 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com2 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com

3

Even today, in India, checking the adultearton of food is an uphill task, mainly due to the fact that,

barring cities and small towns, processed food is still scarcely used in India, and locally sourced

materials are still given a higer importance.

Methods Employed for Adulteration

Turmeric, dals and pulses such as moong or channa: Here adulterant is Metanil Yellow and

Kesari Dal (Added to enhance the yellow colour of a food substance).It's harmful effect is that

it is highly carcinogenic and if consumed over a continuous period of time it can also cause

stomach disorders.

Green chillies, green peas and other vegetables: Here adulterant is Malachite Green (To

accentuate the bright, glowing green colour of the vegetable).Argemone seeds (used to add

bulk and weight)that it is a coloured dye that has proven to be carcinogenic for humans if

consumed over a long period of time.

Mustard seeds and mustard oil: Here adulterant is Argemone seeds (used to add bulk and

weight).Papayaseeds (used to add bulk)that the consumption of these could cause epidemic

4

dropsy and severe glaucoma.

Paneer, khoya, condensed Milk and Milk: Here adulterant is starch (used to give itthick, rich

texture).It 's harmful effect is that it is unhygienic, unprocessed water and starch can cause

stomach disorders. Starch greatly reduces the nutritional value of the ingredient.

Ice cream: Here adulterant is pepperonil, ethylacetate, butraldehyde, emil acetate, nitrate,

washing powder etc are not less than poison. Pepperoil is used as a pesticide and ethyl acetate

causes terribble diseases affecting lungs, kidneys and heart. Ice cream is manufactured in

extremely cold chamber where fat is hardened and several harmful substances are added. Also

a kind of gum is added which is sticky and slow melting. This gum is obtained by boiling

animal parts like tail,the nose,the udder etc.

Black pepper: Here adulterant is Papaya seeds (used to add bulk).It 's harmful effect is that

Papaya seeds can cause serious liver problems and stomach disorders.

Coffee powder: Here adulterant is Tamarind seeds, chicory powder (used to add bulk and

colour).It’s harmful effect is that it can cause diarrhea, stomach disorders, giddiness and severe

joint pains. Children and senior citizens with poor immunity are more susceptible this.

Some other adulterants: The starch in rice powder or wheat flour, often added to thicken cream,

could be identified by the blue colour produced by a dilute solution of iodine in aqueous

potassium iodide. Red wine adulterated with the juice of bilberries or elderberries produced a

deep blue precipitate with lead acetate. Of all forms of adulteration the most reprehensible was

the use of poisonous colouring matters in the manufacture of jellies and sweets. The bright

colours used to attract children often contained lead, copper or mercury salts.

Food-preservatives have a very extensive use, which often constitutes adulteration. Salt is the

classic preservative, but is seldom classified as an adulterant. Salicylic, benzoic, and boric acids,

and their sodium salts, formaldehyde, ammonium fluoride, sulphurous acid and its salts are

among the principal preservatives. Many of these appear to be innocuous, but there is danger that

the continued use of food preserved by these agents may be injurious. Some preservatives have

been conclusively shown to be injurious when used for long period.

Coal-tar colours are employed a great deal, pickles and canned vegetables are sometimes coloured

green with copper salts.

Butter is made more yellow by anatta.

Turmeric is used in mustard and some cereal preparations.

5

Any jellies, which are coloured so as to simulate finer ones. In confectionery, dangerous colours, such

as chrome yellow, Prussian blue, copper and arsenic compounds are employed.

Cream is adulterated with gelatin, and formaldehyde is employed as a preservative for it.

Butter is adulterated to an enormous extent with oleomargarine, a product of beef fat.

Brick dust in chili powder, coloured chalk powder in turmeric.

Injectable dyes in watermelon, peas, capsicum, eggplant, papaya seeds in black pepper etc.

Adulteration in water

1) Water that has been adequately chlorinated, by using the minimum recommended water

treatment standard provide protection against viral and bacterial waterborne diseases. However,

chlorine treatment alone, as used in the routine disinfection of water, might not kill some enteric

viruses and the parasitic organisms that cause giardiasis, amoebiasis, and cryptosporidiosis.

2) In areas where chlorinated tap water is not available or where hygiene and sanitation are poor,

one is advised that only the following might be safe to drink: Beverages, such as tea and coffee,

made with boiled water

3) The safety of canned or bottled carbonated beverages, including carbonated bottled water and

soft drinks is questionable nowadays.

4) Where water might be contaminated, one is advised that ice should also be considered

contaminated and should not be used in beverages. If ice has been in contact with containers

used for drinking, one should thoroughly clean the containers, preferably with soap and hot

water, after the ice has been discarded. It is safer to drink a beverage directly from the can or

bottle than from a questionable container. However, water on the outside of beverage cans or

bottles might also be contaminated. Therefore, one should be advised to dry wet cans or bottles

before they are opened and to wipe clean surfaces with which the mouth will have direct contact.

5) Where water might be contaminated, one is advised to avoid brushing their teeth with tap water.

The following methods may be used for treating water to make it safe for drinking and other

purposes.

a. Water filters Proper selection, operation, care, and maintenance of water filters are essential to

producing safe water.

b. If no source of safe drinking water is available or can be obtained, tap water that is

uncomfortably hot to touch might be safer than cold tap water; however, proper disinfection,

filtering, or boiling is still advised.

Food adulteration is a heinous crime and is thus attached with serious punishments, this paper

elucidate and examine the relevant provisions in the IPC pertaining to adulteration of food

substances. It will also elaborate on a few judgments in this regard.

6

2. LEGAL ANALYSIS

There are various legal provisions enumerated in the IPC pertaining to adulteration of food, in

order to study the degree of the crime committed and understand what qualifies as a crime, it is

necessary to understand what these sections entail and the punishment that they carry with them,

in case of any violation.

1. Section 272 – Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale

Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or

drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing in to be likely that the same will

be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with

both.

Classification Of Offence

Punishment – Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine of 1,000 rupees, or both- Non-Cognizable –

Bailable and Triable by any Magistrate- Non-compoundable.

Explanation

Here emphasis should be laid on the word, ‘Noxious’ which means ‘harmful, poisonous or very

unpleasant’3. Therefore, it expressly negates the possibility of substances being added, which do

not making the product noxious to be categorized as adulteration. For example, Clean water

being added to milk, which consequently waters down the milk cannot constitute as adulteration.

2. Section 273 – Sale of noxious food or drink

Whoever sells, or offers of exposes for sale, as food or drink, and article which has bee rendered

of has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to

believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to six months, of with fine which may extend to one

thousand rupees, or with both.

Classification Of Offence

3 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com

7

Punishment- Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine of 1,000 rupees, or both- None- Cognizable-

Bailable- Triable by any Magistrate- None-compoundable.

Explanation

This section, seeks to penalize not only the manufacturer, but also the seller if the seller of the

adulterated goods is aware of the fact that the said goods are adulterated. This is a futuristic

provision, and deals with a fair amount of litigation, as the seller can often falsely accuse the

manufacturer, and claim that he/she simply sold the products and had no hand in actually

adulterating them.

3. Section 274 – Adulteration of drugs

Whoever adulterates any drug or medical preparation in such a manner as to lessen the efficacy

or change the operation of such drug or medical preparation, or to make it noxious, intending that

it shall be sold or used for, or knowing it to be likely that it will be sold or used for, any

medicinal purpose, as if it had not undergone such adulteration, shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine

which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Classification Of Offence

Punishment- Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine of 1,000 rupees, or both- Non-Cognizable-

Bailable- Triable by any Magistrate- None-compoundable.

4. Section 275 – Sale of adulterated drugs

Whoever, Knowing any drug or medical preparation to have been adulterated in such a manner

as to lessen its efficacy to change its operation, or to render it noxious, sells the same, or offers or

exposes it for sale, or issues it from any dispensary for medicinal purposes as unadulterated, or

causes it to be used for medicinal purposes by any person not knowing of the adulteration, shall

be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months,

or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Classification Of Offence

Punishment – Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine of 1,000 rupees, or both-None- Cognizable

Bailable- Triable by any Magistrate- None-compoundable.

5. Section 276 – Sale of drug as a different drug or preparation

Whoever knowingly sells, or offers or exposes for sale or issues from a dispensary or medicinal

8

purposes, any drug or medical preparation, as a different drug or medical preparation shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or

with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Classification Of Offence

Punishment- Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine of 1,000 rupees, or both- None- Cognizable-

Bailable- Triable by any Magistrate- None-compoundable.

6. Section 419 – Punishment for cheating by personation

Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a

term, which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Classification Of Offence

Punishment- Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both-cognizable-Bailable - Triable by any

Magistrate- compoundable by the person cheated with the permission of the court.

Explanation

This section accounts for counterfeit products, that is, products, which have exactly copied the

label, colour scheme, etc. of popular products but do not have official licenses.

9

7. Section 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to

any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of being converted into a valuable

security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may

extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Classification Of Offence

Punishment – Imprisonment for 7 years and fine-cognizable-Non-bailable tribale by magistrate

Compoundable by the person cheated with the permission of the court.

Explanation

This section insulates the sellers of the counterfeit and adulterated products as often. These

sellers are uneducated and hence unaware of the consequences or repercussions of the sale of

adulterated products. However, there is an important exception in this section whereby selelrs

who are aware of the product being counterfeit or adulterated are clearly absolved of this

reprieve.

8. Section 467 – Forgery of valuable security

Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority

to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any

valuable security, or to receive the principle interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or

delivered any money, movable property or valuable security or any document purporting to

been an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money or an acquittance or

receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with

imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend

to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine .

Classification Of Offence

Para I: Punishment- imprisonment for life , or imprisonment for 10 years and fine –Non-

congnizable-Non bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class – Non-compoubdable.

Para II: Punishment- imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine congnizable-

Non bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class – Noncompoubdable.

9. Section 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating

Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged, shall harm

the reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years,

and shall also be liable to fine.

10

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954

INTRODUCTION4 

Food is one of the basic necessities for sustenance of life. Pure, fresh and healthy diet is most

essential for the health of the people. It is no wonder to say that community health 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. To check this kind of anti-social evil a concerted and determined onslaught was launched

by the Government by introduction of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Bill in the Parliament

to herald an era of much needed hope and relief for the consumers at large.

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

Laws existed in a number of States in India for the prevention of adulteration of food- stuffs, but

they lacked uniformity having been passed at different times without mutual consultation

between States. The need for Central legislation for the whole country in this matter has been felt

since 1937 when a Committee appointed by the Central Advisory Board of Health recommended

this step. ‘Adulteration of food-stuffs and other goods’ is now included in the Concurrent List

(III) in the Constitution of India. It has, therefore, become possible for the Central Government

to enact all India legislation on this subject. The Bill replaces all local food adulteration laws

where they exist and also applies to those States where there are no local laws on the subject.

Among others, it provides for

i. A Central Food Laboratory to which food samples can be referred to for final opinion in

disputed cases (clause 4),

ii. A Central Committee for Food Standards consisting of representatives of Central and State

Governments to advise on matters arising from the administration of the Act (clause 3), and

iii. The vesting in the Central Government of the rule-making power regarding standards of

quality for the articles of food and certain other matters (clause 22).

4 http://www.medindia.net/indian_health_act/the-prevention-of-food-adulteration-act-1954-introduction.htm visited on 13th November, 2015 @ 02:20

11

Concept of Adulteration:-5

An article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated:

1) If the article sold by vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the

purchaser

2) If the article contains any other substance which affects the substance or quality thereof. If

any inferior or cheaper substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article so as

to affect the nature, substance or quality of the product

3) If any constituent of the article has been wholly or in part extracted to affect the quality

thereof

4) If the article has been prepared, packed or kept under unsanitary conditions where by it has

become contaminated or injurious to health

5) If the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrefied, rotten decomposed or

diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise unfit for human

consumption

6) If the article is obtained from a diseased animal

7) If the article contains any poisonous or other ingredient which renders it injurious to health

8) If the container of the article is composed, whether, wholly or in part of any poisonous or

deleterious substance which renders sits contents injurious to health

9) 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

10) If the article contains any prohibited preservative or permitted preservative in excess of the

prescribed limits

11) If the quality or purity of the Article falls below the prescribed limits of variability which

renders it injurious to health.

12) 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 which renders it injurious

to health.

5 http://agmarknet.nic.in/amrscheme/amrstandpreven.htm visited on 13th November, 2015 @ 02:4012

 PROCEDURE FOR SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS: -6    

Any 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 and take samples of such

article of food or adulterant for analysis.

1) Notice will be issued by the Inspector in writing then and there to the seller indicating his

intention

2) Three samples are taken and the signature of the seller is affixed to them

3) One sample is sent for analysis to Public Analyst under intimation to the Local Health

Authority

4) The other two samples are sent to the local health authority for further reference

PENALTIES: -7

Guilt will be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months and

upto 3 years and with fine up to one thousand rupees

The Maggi Debacle8

India’s favorite comfort food, Maggi two-minute noodles, is mired in scandal. It all began in late

May, when state-level regulators in Uttar Pradesh announced that they had found trace elements

of lead — 17.2 parts per million, or at least seven times the allowable levels — in samples of the

popular product from across the northern state. Other states, including Delhi, also claim to have

found elevated levels of lead in Maggi noodles; samples in states such as Maharashtra and

Kerala and Goa, meanwhile, came back clean. Singapore, which had initially asked importers to

pull Maggi noodles, has later allowed sales to resume after its food regulator cleared it.

6 http://agmarknet.nic.in/amrscheme/amrstandpreven.htm 7 http://agmarknet.nic.in/amrscheme/amrstandpreven.htm 8 http://safemedicinescoalition.org/

13

Nestlé India, which claims to have conducted its own tests on more than 1000 samples and found

them safe, denies the claims of elevated lead levels. It asserts that all of its products are safe.

What’s more, no one has fallen sick or died from consuming Maggi products. Still, on June 5,

the company issued a nationwide recall.

While authorities are now making an example out of Maggi, it’s hard to believe that this is the

only consumer product in India that fails to meet safety norms. In fact, a 2015 report by the Food

Safety and Standards Authority of India, the national food regulator, revealed that almost a fifth

of all food samples tested were adulterated or mislabeled. In 2012, a government

study revealed that over 68 percent of milk sampled was adulterated with potentially harmful

additives such as detergents, hydrogen peroxide, and even urea.

While some commentators in India tend to blame foreign multinationals for producing lower-

quality goods for Indian consumption, even when this claim turns out to be true, the real fault

lies with Indian authorities. With a patchwork quilt composed of a central regulator and an array

of state government regulators, many of which are woefully understaffed, it’s a miracle that this

system finds any product quality lapses at all. India is not yet a major exporter of manufactured

food products, but it does export its generic pharmaceutical products to over 200 countries.

A 2014 academic study by a team of researchers from the University of Maryland, the University

of Ottawa, and the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington, D.C., think tank,

the answer could well be yes. The researchers tested samples of antibiotic and tuberculosis drugs

labeled “made in India” and sold in India, Africa, and other non-African middle-income

countries. They found that 10.9 percent of the products were of poor quality — that is, they

either contained none or less than the required dosage of active pharmaceutical ingredients. Of

this 10.9 percent, 7 percent contained less than the required dosage of active ingredients, while

3.9 percent were duds without any of the necessary active ingredients. Drugs without or with less

than the required pharmaceutical ingredients will be ineffective, and therefore potentially

harmful since they won’t treat the condition they’re meant to address.

What’s more, poor-quality drugs were more likely to show up in Africa than in India or other

middle-income markets. While some of this difference could be due to counterfeit drugs and

poor storage conditions, the authors of the study claim that a more plausible explanation is that

Indian companies are directing lower-quality drugs to the African market.

Meanwhile, U.S. regulators are poised to keep Indian drugmakers on a tight leash. In May 2013,

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., a major Indian drug company,pleaded guilty to seven felony charges

and paid a $500 million fine for fabricating data, committing fraud, and selling adulterated drugs

in the U.S. market. Regulation may be at the heart of the issue. India’s national drugs regulator,

the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization, has a staff of a little more than 300 employees,

or about 2 percent the size of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). What’s more, it

14

only has authority over newer drugs; pharmaceuticals that have been on the market for over four

years are under the regulatory jurisdiction of state-level regulators, who are understaffed and, in

some cases, corrupt.

Low-cost Indian generics also continue to draw the ire of advanced economies like Canada,

whose socialized medical system is trying to cut costs by importing cheaper drugs from India.

Currently, some 5 percent of generic prescriptions in Canada are filled by drugs made in India.

Meanwhile, in the United States, a whopping 40 percent of over-the-counter and generic drugs

consumed are made by India’s pharmaceutical companies.

It’s striking, for instance, that in 2008 the FDA opened an office in New Delhi to ensure the

safety of food and medical exports from India to the United States, and partner with Indian

regulators to beef up their capacity on things like clinical trials and production facility

inspections — essentially making the FDA a U.S. watchdog for Indian watchdogs. That

arrangement, originally approved by the previous Congress-led Indian government, continues

now under the Modi government. The FDA drug inspectors reportedly even have the authority to

conduct surprise inspections at plant facilities in India.

But India’s food and drug safety problems are only the beginning. According to a 2009 study by

the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry in India, an industry lobby group, 20

percent of manufacturing units in India were producing products that were deemed substandard

by globally accepted norms. What’s more, defect rates in Indian manufacturing plants were five

to 10 times higher than in advanced economies such as the United States.

15

3. ROLE OF JUDICIARY

Bhagwandas S/O Khimji Patel vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 20 September,

1991

Shri Mankar - Complainant, who is a food Inspector has been notified by the State Govt. for

Akola district. The appointment of Shri Mankar is as per notification No. PFA/1072/52885/V

dt. 22-2-1973 and the Jt. Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration, Nagpur, has

notified him by the notification of State Govt. No. FA/1276/1835/PH-4-III dt. 5th October,

1976.

1. While working as Food Inspector, District Akola and other revenue areas under the

control of the complainant-Shri Mankar, on 24-9-80 at about 9-0 a.m. visited the shop of

the applicant/accused at Jaihind Chauk, Akola.

2. The accused who deals in grocery shop runs his business under the name and styled "M/s.

Shriram Kirana Stores".

3. The applicant/accused Bhagwandas was present in the shop. Shri Mankar disclosed his

identity and his intention of drawing sample of coconut oil which was stored and kept for

sale in the shop of the accused.

4. In presence of the panch witnesses Shri Mankar demanded 375 grams of coconut oil and

had paid Rs. 7.50/- for the same.

5. A sample of coconut oil purchased from the accused was then divided in three equal parts

and each part was filled upon the clean, dry and empty bottles which were duly closed

with the help of cork.

6. The bottles were sealed as per the procedure laid down in the Act. The complainant

thereafter prepared all required documents, labels and had signed the same and obtained

signatures of accused and panchas. Panchanama to that effect was drawn on the spot.

7. Shri Mankar - the complainant, on 25-9-80 sent on sealed sample bottle of coconut oil

bearing Sr. No. 521 to Local Health Authority and Chief of Municipal Council, Akola

and form No. VII in sealed packet to Public Analysts for Health Laboratory, Amaravati.

8. The another sealed packet and copy of form No. VII and specimen impression of seal

used for sealing the samples was sent separately to Public Analyst, Public Health

Laboratory, Amravati.

16

9. The complainant also sent remaining two sealed counter-parts of sample to Local Health

Authority and Chief Officer to Munkcipal Council, Amravati along with copies of form

No. VII and copy of appendix 'D' in sealed packet by a hand delivery.

10. The Public Analysts of Public Health Authority, Amravati has reported the adulteration in

sample of coconut oil and opined that the sample of coconut oil does not confirm to the

standard of coconut oil as per the provisions ofPrevention of Food Adulteration Act and

Rules 1955, vide his report dt. 5-11-80.

11. Thereafter, Shri Mankar sent all the concerned papers to the Local Health Authority and

Chief Municipal Council, for necessary permission from the Joint Commissioner, Food

and Drug Administration, Nagpur to prosecute the accused.

12. On receipt of the sanction from the Joint Commissioner, Nagpur, the complainant Shri

Mankar had filed the complaint against the accused u/S. 7(i) r/w 2(ia)(m) of

the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act

Order

1. This criminal revision application is directed against the Judgment and order passed by the

Addl. Sessions Judge, Akola dt. 17-8-90 in Criminal Appeal No. 172/87 arising out of and

confirming the judgment and order passed by the J.M.F.C. Akola in criminal case No.

431/1981, dated 5-12-1987, convicting the applicant/accused u/S. 16 of thePrevention of

Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of

Rs. 3000/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for 6 months.

2. The accused was tried for the offence u/S. 7(i) r/w  S. 2(ia)(m)  punishable u/S. 16 of

the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 

The State Of Maharashtra vs Mohiddin Gaibi Chougule on 18 June, 2000

1. The Food Inspector Mr. B. K. Karyappa went alongwith Mahadeo Anna Alase (the panch

witness), and paid visit to the milk dairy of the Respondent/accused known as M/s.

Shetkari Seva Dugdhalaya situated at CTS No. 1586 in 'C' ward at Kolhapur.

2. He paid his visit on 9th March, 1981 at about 3.35 p.m. Thereafter, he disclosed his

identity to the accused, that he was a Food Inspector, The accused was present in the

premises and was looking after his business. Mr. Karyappa Inspected the premises in the

presence of panch witness, and it was found that buffalo milk was stored for sale in the

said premises.

3. The Food Inspector purchased 660 ml. of buffalo milk for the purpose of test and analysis,

and paid amount of Rs. 2/- as the price of the said buffalo milk, and obtained receipt from

the accused in respect of the payment. 

17

4. Then, Food Inspector gave intimation to the accused in Form No. VI No. 474. He also

issued notice to accused under Section 14(a) of the Act.

5. The buffalo milk which was purchased by the Food Inspector was equally divided into

three parts, and each part was filled-in each of three dry, clean and empty glass bottles.

6. 18 drops of formalin were added in each bottle as preservative. These bottles were then

sealed as per the provision laid down in the Act and the Rules thereunder, as amended up-

to-date.

7. Sample labels were pasted on the bottles with a paper slip having signature of Local Health

Authority bearing No. KMC (ii) Kolhapur No. A-1950.

8. Thereafter, signatures were obtained so as to have part of the signature on the paper slip

and part of the signature on the wrapper.

9. Then all the three sample parts were taken by the Food Inspector in his possession. Detail

panchnama on the spot was made as per the situation which was prevailing at the premises.

10. On 10th March, 1981, the Food Inspector sent one sealed sample part bearing Sample No.

BKK/19/81 to the Public Health Laboratory. Kolhapur, for the purpose of analysis

alongwith the original memorandum in Form No. VII, under covering letter by hand

delivery. Duplicate copy of Form No. VII, so also, the specimen impression was sent under

covering letter by hand delivery and receipts of the same were obtained from the Public

Analyst, Kolhapur.

11. On the same day, the remaining two sample parts alongwith two copies of memorandum in

Form No. VII under covering letter, and two copies of specimen seal impression under the

covering letter were also sent by hand delivery and receipts thereof were obtained from the

Local Health Authority, Kolhapur.

12. Further, the Public Analyst, Kolhapur sent report in respect of sample of buffalo milk

bearing Sample No. BKK/19/81 vide report No. 1005 dated 1st April, 1981 from Local

Health Authority, Kolhapur on 10th April. 1981.

13. The Public Analyst, in his report, declared the result of analysis as below :

14. "1. Total solids % - 12.94

15. 2. Milk fat % - 5.20

16. 3. Solids not fat % - 7.74."

17. The report of the Public Analyst, thus, reveal that the sample contained milk fat which was

less than 6.0%, and solid, not fat less than 9.0%, and therefore did not confirm to the

standards of the buffalo milk as per the Rules made under the Act.

Order: The Trial Court acquitted the Respondents/original accused Mohiddin Gaibi

Chougule for offence punishable under Section 7(i) read withSection 16(1)(a) of the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 18

1. COMPARATIVE STUDY

India China USA0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Food Produced (in Million Tonnes)

Food Produced (in Million Tonnes)

CHINA

Under the Chinese penal code some articles deal with the adulteration and penalty imposed for

violating the laws.

Article 140: -

Any producer or seller who mixes up or adulterates products, passes fake imitations for genuine,

sells seconds at best quality price, or passes unqualified products as qualified ones, with a sale

amount of not less than 50,000 yuan and not more than 200,000 yuan, is to be sentenced to not

more than two years of fixed-term imprisonment or criminal detention and may in addition or

exclusively be sentenced to a fine of not less than 50 percent and not more than 200 percent of

the sale amount; when the sale amount is not less than 200,000 yuan and not more than 500,000

yuan, is to be sentenced to not less than two years and not more than seven years of fixed-term

imprisonment and may in addition be sentenced to a fine of not less than 50 percent and not more

than 200 percent of the sale amount; when the sale amount is not less than 500,000 yuan and not

more than 2 million yuan, is to be sentenced to not less than seven years and may in addition be

sentenced to a fine of not less than 50 percent and not more than 200 percent of the sale amount;

when the sale amount is not less than two million yuan, is to be sentenced to 15 years of fixed-

term imprisonment or life imprisonment and may in addition be sentenced to a

19

fine of not less than 50 percent and not more than 200 percent of the sale amount or confiscation

of property.9

Article 141: -

Whoever produces or sells fake medicines which are sufficiently able to seriously endanger

human health is to be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment or

criminal detention and may in addition or exclusively be sentenced to a fine of not less than 50

percent and not more than 200 percent of the sale amount; when causing serious harm to human

health, is to be sentenced to not less than three years and not more than ten years of fixed-term

imprisonment and may in addition be sentenced to a fine of not less than 50 percent and not more

than 200 percent of the sale amount; when causing death or particular harm to human health, is

to be sentenced to not less than ten years of fixed-term imprisonment, life imprisonment, or

death penalty and may in addition be sentenced to a fine of not less than 50 percent and not more

than 200 percent of the sale amount or confiscation of property. The fake medicines referred to

in this article mean those fake medicines as well as those medicines and non- medicines that fall

into such a category as to be dealt with as fake medicines in accordance with the regulations of

the "Law of the PRC (People’s republic of China) Governing the Management of Pharmaceutical

Products."

Article 142: -

Whoever produces, sells inferior medicines, thereby causing severe harm to human

health is to be sentenced to not less than three years and not more than ten years of fixed-term

imprisonment and may in addition be sentenced to a fine of not less than 50 percent and not more

than 200 percent of the sale amount; when the consequences are particularly serious, the

sentence is to be not less than ten years of fixed-term imprisonment and may in addition be

sentenced to a fine of not less than 50 percent and not more than 200 percent of the sale amount

or confiscation of property. The inferior medicines referred to in this article mean those inferior

pharmaceutical products that fall into the category of inferior medicines in accordance with the

regulations of the "Law of the PRC Governing the Management of Pharmaceutical Products."

Article 143: -

Whoever produces, sells foods that do not conform with hygienic standards which

sufficiently gives rise to food poisoning accidents or other severe food- originated diseases is to

be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment and may in addition or

exclusively be sentenced to a fine of not less than 50 percent and not more than 200 percent of

9 http://english.gov.cn/2005-10/09/content_75326.htm visited on 13th November, 2015 @ 10:3020

the sale amount; when causing serious harm to human health, the sentence is to be not less than

three years and not more than seven years of fixed-term imprisonment and may in addition be

sentenced to a fine of not less than 50 percent and not more than 200 percent of the sale amount;

when the circumstances are particularly serious, to be not less than seven years of fixed-term

imprisonment or life imprisonment and may in addition be sentenced to a fine of not less than 50

percent and not more than 200 percent of the sale amount or confiscation of property.10

Article 144: -

Whoever produces, sells foods that are mixed with poisonous or harmful non-food materials or

knowingly sells such things is to be sentenced to not more than five years of fixed-term

imprisonment or criminal detention and may in addition or exclusively be sentenced to a fine of

not less than 50 percent and not more than 200 percent of the sale amount; when causing serious

food poisoning accidents or other serious food-originated diseases and giving rise to serious

harm to human health, the sentence is to be not less than five years and not more than ten years

of fixed-term imprisonment and may in addition be sentenced to a fine of not less than 50

percent and not more than 200 percent of the sale amount; when causing death or particularly

harm to human health, is to be punished in accordance with article 141 of the law.11

The   State Food and Drug Administration of China   (SFDA)  was founded in 2003 as part of

China's efforts to improve food safety The SFDA is responsible for overseeing and coordinating

the other health, food, and drug agencies. It is "directly under the State Council, which is in

charge of comprehensive supervision on the safety management of food, health food

and cosmetics and is the competent authority of drug regulation." The SFDA encompasses ten

departments that regulate and oversee different aspects of food and drug law. These include the

General Office Department of Planning and Finance, the Department of Policy and Regulations,

the Department of Food Safety Coordination, the Department of Food Safety Supervision, the

Department of Drug Registration, the Department of Medical Devices, the Department of Drug

Safety and Inspection, the Department of Drug Market Compliance, the Department of Personnel

and Education, and the Department of International Cooperation.12

10 Supra 3111 http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cgvienna/eng/dbtyw/jdwt/crimelaw/t209043.htm visited on 13th November, 2015 @ 10:3012 Supra 31

21

5. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

Conclusions:

1. Processed food is still scarcely used in India, therefore putting regulations in place is an uphill

task. Adulteration is rampant in India, and according to a recent report, one out of every five

samples taken were adulterated, a ratio of 1:5 for adulterated to non-adulterated, i.e. 20% is an

astounding factor.

2. Adulterated can be checked using adequate measures, but in a country as wide spread, and

populous as India, an extremely competent and well established network of professionals is

required. However, as corruption is also widespread in India, coupled with red tapism, any job

should be done with utmost integrity.

3. The punishment attached, to such a heinous crime such as adulteration of food, is very scanty.

a bailable imprisonment of 6 months or Rs.1000 as fine, in todays economy is child’s play, and

an insult to the lives of people put at stake.

4. Even the adulteration of drugs has a very lenient punishment attached to it, and is the same as

that for adulteration of food.

5. Everyday food is adulterated to a great extent, especially spices and pulses, which are integral

to the Indian Cuisine.

6. The laboratories to which the food samples are sent are private laboratories and not government

laboratories, therefore the findings of these labs are highly questionable.

7. The food inspectors are often corrupt, and most of the cases of adulteration never get reported.

8. Some definitions of adulteration can never be proved, for explae, if the article is obtained from

a diseased animal, it accounts for an adulterated product. Often, the water on the surface of the

water bottle is also contaminated, but this cannot be proven, as the sample size is not enough.

Suggestions:

1. There should be special tribunals which deal exclusively with such cases and help in solving the

cases at a faster speed. This would avoid the undue delay in the case.

2. There should be more consumer awareness, because food adulteration is at an all time high.

3. There should be food security agencies which check the quality of the food before it is sold to

the public.

22

4. Street stalls and restaurants should have regulatory checks as to what ingredients are being used

in the making of their food

5. It should be insured that whatever these products claim to have in their edibles is present in the

food. For example organic foods should be organic.

6. All ingredients should be specified on the back of the package. There should not be any

discrepancies in the ingredients mentioned.

7. In case of any discrepancy, the consumer should be awarded heavy compensation in order to

deter other food sellers from adulterating their food.

8. There should be certain officers who go to rural areas and carry out inspection in order to avoid

food adulteration in rural areas.

9. Drugs should not be allowed to be sold without a proper prescription from a certified medical

practitioner.

10. Consumers should be made aware so as to not buy drugs at a cheaper price from unauthorized

individuals.

11. There should be inspections carried out at pharmacies in order to check if the pharmacy has any

adulterated drug.

12. If in the food ingredients there are certain substances which may cause allergy to people or

which is a common allergy for the general public should be specified.

23

24

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS REFERED

Indian Penal Code by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, 32nd Edition, reprint 2014

Commentary on the Indian Penal Code by K.D.Gaur with a Foreword by Justice P.V. Reddi,

2nd Edition 2013

Law of Crimes (Indian Penal Code, 1860) by Dr. S.R.Myneni, 2nd Edition 2014

Prevention of Food Adultration and the Law by Rath S.N., (Deep and Deep, 19885)

ARTICLES REFERED

Adulteration of Food by Encyclopedia of Food and Culture | 2003 by Frank, Richard L. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. By Agmaeket

Food Adulteration by The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2012,

Columbia University Press.

Action against adulterated food / medicine by Consumer Grievence

ACTS/ CONVENTION Indian penal code Prevention of food aulterartion act The narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act

25

WEBSITES

http://www.indianlawcases.com/ActIndian.Penal.Code,18601719 http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/food_adulteration.aspx http://eh.net/encyclopedia/historyoffoodanddrugregulationintheunitedstates/ https://ipcsections.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/ http://agmarknet.nic.in/amrscheme/amrstandpreven.htm http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1727139/ http://www.medindia.net/indian_health_act/

thepreventionoffoodadulterationact1954introduction.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/food_and_drug_law http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cgvienna/eng/dbtyw/jdwt/crimelaw/t209043.htm http://english.gov.cn/2005-10/09/content_75326.htm http://www.lawyerscollective.org/files/Fact%20Sheet%20NDPS%20Act%201985.pdf http://english.gov.cn/2005-10/09/content_75326.htm http://www.lawyerscollective.org/files/Fact%20Sheet%20NDPS%20Act%201985.pdf http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/food_adulteration.aspx http://www.encyclo.co.uk/meaning-of-adulterant http://www.history.com/news/hungry-history/food-fraud-a-brief-history-of-the-adulteration-

of-food

26