Constitutional Status and Enforcement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act:

Constitutional Status and Enforcement of the PFA Act:

The subject of the Prevention of Food Adulteration is in the concurrent list of the constitution.

However, in general, the enforcement of the Act is done by the State/U.T Governments. Each

State Government and Union Territory has created its own organisation for implementation of

the Act and Rules framed there under. The Central Government primarily plays an advisory role

in its implementation besides carrying out various statutory functions/duties assigned to it under

the various provisions of the Act.

Section 22A empowers the Central Government to give such directions as it may deem necessary

to a State Government regarding the implementation of the Act. Whereas, Section 23 empowers

the Central Government to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act. In particular, and

without prejudice to the generality of the rule making power, the power of the Central

Government includes the one in clause (f). Further, Section 24 of the Act is the section which

grants rule making power to the State Government. The State Government may, after

consultation with the Committee, and subject to the condition of previous publication, there

under make rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act in matters not

falling within the purview of section 23.moreover, Sub section (2) of Section 24 grants power to

the State Government to make rules with regard to the powers and duties  of the different

authorities under the Act. Prescription of forms of licences for the manufacture for sale, storage,

sale and distribution of articles of food, the conditions subject to which such licences may be

issued and the fees payable there for, analysis of any article of food or matter and provision for

further delegation of power by the State Government to the Food(Health) Authority or the

subordinate authorities are the matters covered within this delegated power. Thus there is

chances of conflict between centre and state.

Manner of interpretation of the Act

It is well-settled that wherever possible, without unreasonable stretching or straining, the

language of such a statute should be construed in a manner which would suppress the mischief,

advance the remedy, promote its object, prevent its subtle evasion and foil its artful

circumvention.

Whether the Act and Rules infringes Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and20(3) of Constitution of India

It is also argued that by the Act and the Rules, the guarantee of Art. 14 was infringed, but no

argument was presented before court independently of the argument relating to infringement of

the guarantee under Art. 19(1)(g), in support of the contention that the Act infringed the

guarantee of equality before the law or equal protection of the laws. The Act deals with the

regulation of a class of traders, and in view of the widespread malpractices, and the practical

difficulties of controlling those malpractices, stringent provisions have been made by the Act.

The classification is founded on an intelligible differentia and the differentia has a rational

relation to the object sought to be achieved. The provisions of the Act again do not invest

arbitrary authority upon those who are to administer the Act nor can it be said that the standards

prescribed are arbitrary. The Act also does not infringe the guarantee of Art. 20(3) of the,

Constitution. By that clause no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness

against himself. But by enacting that a plea by the vendor in a prosecution for an offence

pertaining to sale of adulterated or misbranded article of food, that he was ignorant of the nature,

substance or quality will not be a defence, the guarantee under Art. 20(3) is not infringed. The

vendor when charged with an offence is not thereby compelled to be a witness against himself.

Nor can it be said that by making the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory

conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, any such infringement is intended. The provision

has been made with a view to secure formal evidence of facts without requiring the Director to

remain present, and in' the interest of effective administration of the Act, the certificate signed by

the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is made final and conclusive evidence of the facts

stated therein. The Director is a highly placed official, an expert in determining the nature,

substance and quality of food, and is wholly disinterested in the result of any case coming before

the Courts. It is difficult to appreciate how conclusiveness attributed to the certificate of the

Director compels the vendor charged with an offence under the Act to be a witness.. As the

preamble of the Act indicates, "it is an Act to make provision for the prevention of adulteration

of food. Food’ is defined in S. 2(v) " Section 2(ia) defines what is 'adulterated food'

‘Food’, ‘Adulterated’ and ‘Misbranded’-A Conceptualization

As per PFA, Food includes everything, which is consumed by human beings or even used for

preparing items of human consumption. Thus cereals, oil, sugar, cooked food, drinks, spices,

colouring matters, flavouring matter etc. are all included in the category of food. It excludes

water and drugs. However, packaged natural water and packaged mineral water are considered to

be food.We ordinarily mean by adulteration to “debase, falsify by mixing with something

inferior or spurious”. By adulterated food, people also mean rotten, putrefied, insect infested or

poisonous food. As per the Act, a food is deemed 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 insanitary 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 prescribed in respect thereof is present in the article, or if

the amount 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.

(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

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.

 In "M. V. Joshi v. M. U. Shimpi8Supreme Court observed that If the quality or purity of butter falls

below the standard prescribed by the said rule or its constituents are in excess of the prescribed

limits of variability, it shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of S. 2 of the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. If the prescribed standard is not attained, the statute treats

such butter, by fiction, as an adulterated food though in fact it is not adulterated

Broadly speaking, the definition covers situations where a food article is sub-standard, or

contains injurious ingredients or has become injurious to health by reason of packing or keeping

under unsanitary conditions or having become contaminated or is otherwise not fit for

consumption. The definition also extends to cases of articles which fall below. Under the Act an

article in order to be deemed to be adulterated need not be necessarily be poisonous or injurious

to the health. Indeed it may even be conducive to health in some cases; the offence is complete

when a substance is used for mixing is not which is not recognized by law9. Thus, It is

undoubtedly a social evil which can be regarded as the outcome of an interaction between a

number of social, economic, technical and human behavioural factors.

This law replaces all local food adulteration laws where they exist and also applies to those

States where there were 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 cases10

(ii) a Central Committee for food Standards consisting of representatives of Central and State

Government to advise on matters  arising from the administration of Act,11 and

8 AIR 1961 SC 1494

9In re, S. Moses, AIR 1961 SC 631

10 clause 4

11 clause 3

(iii) the vesting in the Central Government of the rule-making power regarding standards of

quality for the articles of food and certain other matters12.

The provisions of the Act are very stringent. it is necessary to briefly notice some of the relevant

provisions of the Act . Section 7, upon which most of the arguments turn, needs to be noticed.

Section 7 of the Act provides that ‘no person shall himself or by any person on his behalf

manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute-

(i) any adulterated food;

(ii) any misbranded food;

(iii) any article of food for the sale of which a licence is prescribed, except in accordance with

the conditions of the licence;

(iv) any article of food for the sale of which is for the time being prohibited by the Food (Health)

Authority in the interest of public health; or

(v) any article of food in contravention of any other' provision of this Act or of any rule made

there under.’

Act provides that a food inspector appointed13 under of the Act is authorised to take samples of

any articles of food from any person selling such article, or from any person who is in the course

of conveying, delivering or preparing to deliver such article to a purchaser or consignee, or from

a consignee after delivery of any such article to him, and to send such sample for analysis to, the

public analyst, and with the previous approval of the health officer having jurisdiction in the

local area concerned, or with the previous approval of the Food (Health) Authority to prohibit the

sale of any article of food in the interest of public health.14 The procedure prescribed by the Act

for investigation and prosecution of offences has to be followed and those prescribed by the code

of criminal procedure can not in view of section 5(2) thereof, be restored to. Hence it excludes

the ordinary jurisdiction of police officer under the said Act15.

Act provides that any document purporting to be a report signed by a public analyst, unless it has

been superseded under sub-section (3), or any document purporting to be a certificate signed by

the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein

in any proceeding under this Act or under sections 272 to 276 of the Indian Penal Code.16

12 clause 22

13 Section 9 ( 1 )

14 section 10

15A Treaties On Economic And Social Offences:Dr.B.K.Sharma, Dr Vijay Nagpal

16 Sub-section (5) of s. 13

However, any such document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central

Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.

Section 16(1) prescribes the penalties for the violation of provisions contained in the Act. One of

such provision provides that ‘if any person-

(a) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf imports into India or manufactures

for sale, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food-

(i) which is adulterated or misbranded or the sale of which is prohibited by the Food (Health)

authority in the interest of public health;

(ii)other than an article of food referred to in subclause (i), incontravention of any of the

provisions of this Act or of any rule madethere under; or

and

(f) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf gives to the vendor a false warranty

in writing in respect of any article of food sold by him, he shall in addition to the penalty to

which he may be liable under the provisions of section 6, be punish-able with imprisonment for a

term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to six years, and with fine

which shall not be less than one thousand rupees.17

Section 19 deals with the defences which may, and which may not, be allowed in prosecutions

under the Act. It provides that ‘it shall be no defence in a prosecution for an offence pertaining to

the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food to allege merely that the vendor was

ignorant of the nature, substance or quality of the food sold by him or that the purchaser having

purchased any article for analysis was not prejudiced by the sale.18 Similarly, a vendor shall not

be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded

article of food if he proves:

(a) that he purchased the article of food-

(i) in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof, from a duly licensed manufacturer,

distributor or dealer;

(ii) in any other case, from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the

prescribed form; and

17cls. (a) & (f)

18Section 19 (1)

(b) that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the

same state as he purchased it. (3)Any person by whom a warranty as is referred to in section 14

is alleged to have been given shall be entitled to appear at the hearing and give evidence.

Whether the restriction imposed is reasonable or unreasonable

It is argued that, the Act imposes unreasonable restrictions, because it creates absolute liability

by S. 16(1) (a) and imposes severe penalties for storage and sale or distribution of articles of

food found to be adulterated or misbranded, or prohibited by law; it prescribes standards which

are technical, and absolute, and for the slightest departure there from the trader is liable to be

prosecuted and punished, the Act is unconstitutional.19 It is also argued that it is impossible for an

ordinary trader without the assistance of an expert technician to ascertain whether the articles of

food purchased by him comply with the prescribed standards, and that in prescribing the

standards of quality the imperceptible changes which take place in foodstuffs by passage of time,

are not taken into account.

Repelling all such argument the court cleared the position and observed that ‘the restrictions

imposed upon the conduct of business by traders in foodstuffs cannot be deemed unreasonable.

By s. 16(1) provision is made for imposing penalties, among other acts, for storage, sale or

distribution of articles of food which are adulterated or misbranded, or sale of which is

prohibited by the Food (Health) authority in the interest of the public health, or is in

contravention of the Act or the rules. The Act, it is true, does not make some blame-worthy

mental condition constituted by knowledge or intention relating to the nature of the article stored,

sold or distributed, an ingredient of the offence. Unless the case falls within sub-s. (2) of s. 19, if

sale, storage or distribution is established, intention to sell articles or knowledge that the articles

are adulterated, misbranded, or prohibited need no, be proved by the prosecutor to bring home

the charge. Sub- section (1) of s. 19 provides that it is no defence in a charge, for an offence

pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food to allege merely that the

vendor was ignorant of the nature, substance or quality of the food sold by him, or that the

purchaser having purchased any article for analysis was not prejudiced by the sale. By that clause

a bare plea of ignorance by a trader about the nature, substance or quality of the food sold by him

is not a defence in a prosecution for the offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated food nor

that the article was, purchased for analysis. But in considering whether creation of absolute

19 Andhra Pradesh Grain & Seed Merchants' Association etc. v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 2346

liability amounts to imposing unreasonable restrictions, the Court has to strike a balance between

the individual right and public weal. The Courts will not strike down an Act as imposing

unreasonable restrictions merely because it creates an absolute liability for infringement of the

law which involves grave danger to public health. The Courts will undoubtedly consider whether

without imposing absolute liability the object of the statute could be reasonably secured. For that

purpose the Court will consider the object of, the Act, apprehended danger to the public interest,

arising out of the activity if not controlled and the, possibility of achieving the intended results

by less stringent provisions. The nature of the trade in foodstuffs, the channels of supply and the

movement of goods from trader to trader and fertile sources of adulteration and misbranding

make it extremely difficult in a large majority of cases to establish affirmatively that storage or

sale of adulterated or misbranded foodstuff was with a guilty mind. Provisions in the statute book

creating absolute liability for sale of adulterated food are fairly common.

It may be noted here that similar provisions regarding strict liability is imposed under U.K law.

Under section 3(1) of the English, Foods & Drugs Act, 1938, absolute duty has been on a dealer

in foodstuff regardless of negligence. Such duty were held constitutional as well as reasonable.20

The same provision is repeated in S. 2 of the "Food and Drugs Act, 1955.

Strict Liability and requirement of proof of Mens-rea—

one of the essential element of a crime, is mensreaor guilty mind. In the entire field of criminal

law there is no important doctrine than that of mensrea. The fundamental principle of English

Criminal jurisprudence, is “actus non facitreum nisi mens sit rea”. Mensreais the state of mind

indicating culpability, which is required by statute as an element of a crime. It is commonly

taken to mean some blameworthy mental condition, whether constituted by intention or

knowledge or otherwise, the absence of which on any particular occasion negatives the intention

of a crime. The term ‘mensrea’ has been given to volition, which is the motive force behind the

criminal act. It is also one of the essential ingredients of criminal liability. As a general rule

every crime requires a mental element, the nature of which will depend upon the definition of the

particular crime in question. Even in crimes of strict liability some mental element is required.

the question whether common law requirement of mensrea must imported into every crime

defined in the statute even where it is not expressly mentioned as an ingredient,  has been

discussed in a number of cases both in England and India.

There are two school of thoughts one embodied in the judgement of Wright in Sherras v. de

rutzen21 that in every statute mensrea is to be implied  unless contrary is shown and second is that

20 Lindley v. George W. Horner & Co. Ltd 1950-1 All ER 234;(1) and Lamb v. Sunderland and District Creamery Ltd.

1951-1 All ER 923

21(1895) 1 Q.B. 1918.

of Kenndy . L.J. in Hobbs v Winchester corporation22 that you ought to construe the statute

literally unless there is something to show that mensrea is required.

In Russell on Crime,23 it is stated... there is a presumption that in any statutory crime the common

law mental element, mensrea,  is an essential ingredient.

On the question how to rebut this presumption, the policy of the courts is unpredictable. In

Halsbury’sLaws of England, 24 the following passage appears: A statutory crime may or may not

contain an express definition of the necessary state of mind. A statute may require a specific

intention, malice, knowledge,  wilfulness,  or recklessness. On the other hand, it may be silent as

to any requirement of mensrea, and in such a case in order to determine whether or not mensrea,

is an essential element of the offence it is necessary to look at the objects and terms of the

statute. This passage also indicates that the absence of any specific mention of a state of mind as

an ingredient of an offence in a statute is not decisive of the question whether mensrea, is an

ingredient of the offence or not: it depends upon the object and the terms of the statute. So too,

Archbold25says much to the same effect that:

It has always been a principle of the common law that mensrea, is an essential element in the

commission of any criminal offence against the common law.... In the case of statutory offences

it depends on the effect of the statute.... .

The leading case on the subject is Sherrasv. De Rutzen26There is a presumption that mensrea, an

evil intention, or a knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act, is an essential ingredient in every

offence; but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating

the offence or by the subject-matter with which it deals, and both must be considered.

The Privy Council in Jacob Bruhn v. King on the Prosecution of the Opium Farmer27

observed that  mensrea, was not really excluded but the burden of proof to negative mensrea,

was placed upon the accused.

Lord Coleridge, J., cited with approval the following passage of Channell, J., in

22 (1910) 2 K.B. 471

2311th Edn., Vol. 1, at p. 64:

243rd Edn., Vol. 10, in para 508, at p. 273

25in  book on Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 35th Edn.,at p. 48

26[(1895) 1 QB 918, 921].

27[LR(1909) AC 317, 324]

Pearks, Gunston& Tee, Ltd. v. Ward28: But there are exceptions to this rule in the case of quasi-

criminal offences, as they may be termed, that is to say, where certain acts are forbidden by law

under a penalty, possibly even under a personal penalty, such as imprisonment, at any rate in

default of payment, of a fine; and the reason for this is, that the legislature has thought it so

important to prevent the particular act from being committed that it absolutely forbids it to be

done; and if it is done the offender is liable to a penalty whether he had any mensrea, or not, and

whether or not he intended to commit a breach of the law. Where the act is of this character then

the master, who, in fact, has done the forbidden thing through his servant, is responsible and is

liable to a penalty. There is no reason why he should not be, because the very object of the

legislature was to forbid the thing absolutely.

This decision states the same principle in a different form. It also places emphasis on the terms

and the object of the statute in the context of the question whether mensrea, is excluded or not.

The decision in Rex v. Jacobs 29 illustrates that on a construction of the particular statute, having

regard to the object of the statute and its terms, the Court may hold that mensrea, is not a

necessary ingredient of the offence. In Brendv. Wood 30 dealing with an emergency legislation

relating to fuel rationing, Goddard, C.J., observed: There are statutes and regulations in which

Parliament has been not to create offences and make people responsible before criminal courts

although there is an absence of mensrea, but it is certainly not the Court’s duty to be acute to find

that mensrea, is not a constituent part of a crime. It is of the utmost importance for the protection

of the liberty of the subject that a Court should always bear in mind that, unless a statute, either

clearly or by necessary implication, rules out mensrea, as a constituent part of a crime, the Court

should not find a man guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has a guilty mind.

In Srinivas Mall Bairoloyav. King-Emperor 31Lord Parcq, speaking for the Board, approved the

view expressed by Goddard, C.J., in Brendv. Wood and observed:Their Lordships agree with the

view expressed by the Lord ChiefJustice of England, when he said: ‘It is in my opinion the

utmost importance for theprotection of the liberty of the subject that a court should always bear

in mind that, unlessthe statute, either clearly or by necessary implication, rules out mensrea, as a

constituentpart of a crime, a defendant should not be found guilty of an offence against the

criminallaw unless he has got a guilty mind.’

28[(1902) 71 LJ KB 656]

29[(1944) KB 417]

30[(1946) 62

The Times LR 462, 463]

31[(1947) ILR 26 Pat 460, 469 (PC)]

The acceptance of the principle by the Judicial Committee that mensrea, is a constituent part of a

crime unless the statute clearly or by necessary implication excludes the same, and the

application of the same to a welfare measure is an indication that the Court shall not be astute in

construing a statute to ignore mensrea, on a slippery ground of a welfare measure unless the

statute compels it to do so. Indeed, in that case the Judicial Committee refused to accept the

argument that where there is an absolute prohibition, no question of mensrea, arises. Wills, J. in

R. v. Tolson32: Although, prima facie and as a general rule, there must be a mind at fault before

there can be a crime, it is not an inflexible rule, and a statute may relate to such a subject-matter

and may be so framed as to make an act criminal whether there has been any intention to break

the law or otherwise to do wrong, or not.

Chagla, C.J., speaking for the Division Bench, after considering the relevant English and Indian

decisions, observed: It is not suggested that even in the class of cases where the offence is not a

minor offence or not quasi-criminal that the legislature cannot introduce the principle of

vicarious liability and make the master liable for the acts of his servant although the master has

no mensrea, and was morally innocent. But the Courts must be reluctant to come to such a

conclusion unless the clear words of the statute compel them to do so or they are driven to that

conclusion by necessary implication.

It is a well settled principle of common law that mensreais an essential ingredient of a criminal

offence. Doubtless a statute can exclude that element, but it is a sound rule of construction

adopted in England and also accepted in India to construe a statutory provision creating an

offence in conformity with the common law rather than against unless the statute expressly or by

necessary implication excluded mensrea. To put it differently, there is a presumption that

mensrea, is an essential ingredient of a statutory offence; but this may be rebutted by the express

words of a statute creating the offence or by necessary implication.

But the mere fact that the object of a statute is to promote welfare activities or to eradicate grave

social evils is in itself not decisive of the question whether the element of guilty mind is

excluded from the ingredients of the offence. It is also necessary to enquire whether a statute by

putting a person under strict liability, helps him to assist the State in the enforcement of the law:

can he do anything to promote the observance of the law? Mensrea, by necessary implication can

be excluded from a statute only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object

of a statute would otherwise be defeated and its exclusion enables those put under strict liability

by their act or omission to assist the promotion of the law. The nature of mensrea that will be

implied in a statute creating an offence depends upon the object of the Act and the provisions

thereof.

In Mousell Brothers v. London and North Western Rail Co.33Atkin, J., observed:

32[23 QBD 168]

33[1917] 2 K.B. 845.

"...... yet the legislature may prohibit an act or enforce a duty in such words to make the

prohibitions or the duty absolute :....... To ascertain whether a particular Act of Parliament has

that effect or not, regard must be had to the object of the statute, the words used, the nature of the

duty laid down, the person whom it is imposed, the person by whom it would in ordinary

circumstances be performed, and the person upon whom the penalty is imposed."

In Quality Dairies (York) Ltd. v. Pedley34 the Court of Appeal held thatRegulation-26(1) of the

Mill and Dairies Regulation, 1949, requiring a distributor to ensure that every vessel used as a

container for milk shall be in a state of thorough cleanliness, imposed an absolute liability.

It is true that for the protection of the liberty of the citizen, in the definition of offences,

blameworthy mental condition is ordinarily an ingredient either by express enactment or clear

implication: but in Acts enacted to deal with a grave social evil, or for. Ensuring public welfare,

especially in offences against public health, e.g., statutes regulating storage or sale of articles of

food and drink, sale of drugs, sale of controlled or scare commodities, it is often found necessary

in the larger public interest to provide for imposition of liability without proof of a guilty mind.

If from the scheme of the Act it appears that compliance with the regulatory provisions will be

promoted by imposing an absolute liability, and that it cannot otherwise be reasonably ensured,

the Court will be justified in holding that the restriction on the right of the trader is in the interest

of the general public. Adulteration and misbranding of foodstuffs is a rampant evil and a statute

calculated to control that evil is indisputably in the interest of the general public : The statute

imposing restrictions upon traders will not be deemed unreasonable merely because it makes a

departure from the normal structure of statutes enunciating offences and prescribing

punishments. By sub-s. (2) of S. 19, even in respect of the absolute offence, the Parliament has

enacted that on proof of certain facts, criminal liability will be excluded. Thereby a vendor is not

deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded

article of food if he proves that the purchased the article of food from a duly licensed

manufacturer, distributor or dealer in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof, and

in any other case from any manufacturer, distributor of dealer with a written warranty in the

prescribed form, provided the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that

he sold it in the same state as the purchased it. The argument of counsel for the petitioners that

the provision that a retail seller who opens a container of a branded article of food loses even the

limited protection under s. 19(2) is without substance.Clause (b) of sub-s. (2) of s. 19 does not

provide, nor does it imply, that if the container of a branded article is opened, the article of food

ceases to be in them same state in which the vendor purchased it. If the article of food' is sold in

the same condition in which it was purchased from a licensed manufacturer or dealer, or was

34[1952] 1 All.E..R. 380.

purchased with a warranty, the vendor will not lose the protection of sub-s. (2) of S. 19 merely

because he opened the container. If the vendor has obtained the article from a licensed

manufacturer, distributor or dealer or from a manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a warranty,

he is protected, provided he has property stored the article and sells it in the same state as he

purchased the article, even if it turns out that the article was adulterated or misbranded. The Act

does not dispense with proof that the article of food is adulterated, misbranded or that its sale is

prohibited: it enacts that a vendor selling articles of food adulterated or misbranded cannot plead

merely that hewas ignorant of the nature, substance or quality of the goods. A statute enacted by

the Parliament in the interest of public health (which is generally made in similar statutes

elsewhere) imposing liability for an offence without proof of a guilty mind does not per se

imposerestrictions on the, freedom to carry on trade which are unreasonable.

It is true that stringent penalties are provided under S. 16 (1)(a). A vendor of adulterated,

misbranded or prohibited articles of food is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall

not, in the absence of adequate and special reasons, be less than six months, and which may

extend to six years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. But for the

protection of the public by ensuring the purity of articles of.food supplied to the people and

preventing malpractices by the traders in articles of food, severity of the penalties is not so

disproportionate to the gravity of the offence that it may be deemed unreasonable.

The Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kartar Singh35 in which in dealing with an argument

of invalidity of the rule setting out standards under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act

observed :

"The standards themselves, it would be noticed, have been prescribed by the Central Government

on the advice of a Committee which included in its composition persons considered experts in

the field of food technology and food analysis. In the circumstances, if the rule has to be struck

down as imposing unreasonable or discriminatory standards, it could not be done merely on any

a priori reasoning but only as a result of materials placed before the Court by way of scientific

analysis. . . . That where a party seeks to impeach the validity of a rule made by a competent

authority . .. . . . the burden is on him to plead and prove the infirmity is too well established to

need elaboration. If, therefore, the respondent desired to challenge the validity of the rule on the

ground either of its unreasonableness or-its discriminatory nature, he had to lay a foundation for

it by setting out the facts necessary to sustain such a plea and adduce cogent and convincing

evidence to make out his case, for there is a presumption that every factor which is relevant or

35 (1) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 679.

material has been taken into account in formulating the classification of the zones and the,

prescription of the minimum standards to each zone, and where we have a rule framed with the

assistance of a Committee containing experts such as the one constituted under s. 3 of the Act,

that presumption is strong, if not overwhelming."

Enforcement agency

The law, previously enforced by the Director General of Health Services, Department of Health

(DH), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MHFW), Government of India (GOI), is now

enforced by the FSSAI. The Central Committee of Food Safety (CCFS) and Directorate General

of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare are the primary policy making bodies

that advise Central and State Governments regarding the administration of the Act and developed

standards relating to the Act.

In India, a three-tier system is in vogue for ensuring food quality and food safety. The State

Governments and local bodies in Corporation and Municipalities implement the provisions of the

Act. It is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to liase with the

national and international food quality control organisation, namely the Bureau of Indian

Standards (BIS) which is associated with the certification of the processed food articles, the

Directorate of Marketing and Inspection (DMI), the Ministry of Food Processing Industries as

well as the Codex Alimentarius Commission. It also includes in its role the creation of consumer

awareness, which is hardly evident. Enforcement of the food laws primarily rests with the

State/UTs. There are 28 States and 7 Union Territories in the country. The implementation of the

Act in most of the States is under the administrative control of the Directorate of Health

Services, whereas, in a few States, the implementation is being combined with Drugs

Administration under the Joint Food and Drug Administration. The implementation has been left

to the administrative setup of the States, but it has been stressed on the States that whatever the

structure be, there should be a whole-time Senior Officer duly qualified and experienced in Food

Science, Food Technology, Food Analysis with other supporting officers and inspectors. State

Governments are also empowered to make rules laying down details of licensing conditions of

food, the establishments of food industries and prescribing licence fees/analysis fees. Under the

PFA, Food Inspectors are appointed by the State governments. They are often a part of the Food

and Drug Administration or Local Health Authority. The Food Inspector has the power to take a

sample of the food from the place of manufacture, storage or from seller and send it to a Public

Analyst for testing36. Public Analysts have been created under the Act to analyse sample of

article of food sent to them.37

36Section 10

37Section 8

A Food Inspector who intends to take a sample has to disclose his identity and inform the retailer

his intention of taking a particular product as a sample for analysis38. The Food Inspector takes

three samples, which are to be sealed and labelled39. He sends one sample with a memorandum to

a Public Analyst40. The other two samples are deposited in the office of the department to which

the Food Inspector belongs41. The Public Analyst sends his report42. If the Analyst’s report

declares that the sample is not in conformity with the provisions of the PFA, the Food Inspector

initiates prosecution of the PFA, the Food Inspector initiates prosecution in the court of a first

class magistrate. The Food Inspector while taking sample asks the retailer to disclose the name of

the wholesaler/distributor. From the package, the Food Inspector also gets to know the name of

the manufacturer and distributor. Thus, he knows the entire chain. The Food Inspector can, and

often does, make all the parties in the chain accused in the first instance itself. Along with

initiating prosecution, the Food Inspector sends letters to manufacturer, distributor and

wholesaler. The letter informs that a case has been initiated and that the accused can make an

application before the court to have their sample re-tested by a Central Food Laboratory within

ten days from the receipt of the letter. The analysis by the Central Food Laboratory is considered

superior to the report of the Public Analyst43. It is a right of the accused to get a sample re-tested

from a Central Food Laboratory. If an accused makes an application to the Magistrate, the court

directs the department to produce the remaining two samples. After inspecting the seal, the court

sends one sample to a Central Food Laboratory. The Central Food Laboratory sends the report. If

the report declares the sample to be in conformity with the provisions of the PFA and Rules, the

court discharges the case. If the sample fails, trial by the magistrate starts.

Position of corporate bodies

Corporate bodies like companies, co-operatives or firms are also persons in the eyes of the law.

These can be prosecuted and punished as corporate bodies under the Act. A fine can always be

38Section 11(a)

39Section 11(b)

40Section 11©(i)

41Section 11 ©(ii)

42Section 13(1)

43Section 13(3)

paid out of their corporate account. However, a company or co-operative is not a real person who

can be imprisoned. There have to be specific persons who can be held responsible. The PFA

makes provisions that corporate bodies can authorise a person, like a director, manager or

secretary to exercise all such powers and take all steps to prevent food adulteration and inform

the local (health) authority of such an authorisation. The authorised person is called a PFA

nominee. The nominee represents the organisation for all matters dealing with the PFA. He is

held responsible for any violation committed by the firm. If an organisation has not appointed a

nominee, the court holds the person who was responsible to the corporate body for the

commission or omission of the action, which led to the violation of the PFA. In State Bank of

Hyderabad v. T. Meenakshi and Anodr44the court observed that no doubt the corporation can also

incur a criminal liability e.g. various statute do create a criminal liability on the part of the bodies

corporate  violate any laws. But it must also be remembered that those very statutes which

creates the criminal liability against the body corporate do normally specify that either the officer

or the director as the case may be  of such body corporate to be prosecuted and punished in the

case when the offence is committed by the body corporate.

Nature of the Provision

It is made a criminal offence because it is an important characteristic of criminal law is that its

enforcement is by government investigations and prosecution. Therefore with minor exceptions,

government has chosen to reserve for itself the role of agent of social change in India. Although

4404 BC 19

food adulteration was already a crime under Indian penal code, the Act was enacted as an

additional statute tailored to the needs of punishing and eliminating this socio economic crime.

The provisions of the Act are mandatory and contravention of the rules can theoretically lead to

both fine and imprisonment. But this happens rarely in practice.

Criticisms and suggestions

The law commission report shows that the act to be overall most inadequate statute , regulating a

social economic offence and most inclusive of the special provision necessary for combating

these offences. The question raised is why the Act despite its excellence as a statute, has been

unsuccessful in curbing adulteration.

According to some its judiciary fault because judiciary has been unnecessary obstructionist in

interpreting legal technicalities to prevent successful prosecution of food adulterations. Further,

it is alleged that judges in sentencing white collar criminals including food adulteration, have

failed to meet out sentences commensurate with seriousness of the offence45. Other reason

includes insufficient financing46, Corruption among government employee, too few and under

equipped laboratory facilities for analysing food samples, shortage of food spectres, apparatus

for enforcement is so inadequate that rural areas have almost no food inspectors and state and

union territory even do not have even one laboratory that analyzes the food samples. This is

made clear from following data;

Performance under Prevention of Food Adulteration47

Sl.No Particulars 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2009-10 2010-11(

1 No.of samples

2 No.Found 761 545 419 547 923 25

analysed 4277 3968 3641 3639 4996 310

46First three five year plans did not mention prevention of food adulteration.the fourth plan iniyialy suggested

allocation ruppes twelve crores , reduced this to four crores and much of this four crores never actually

appropriated.similarly food and agriculytural organization showed concern about inadequacy of the fund.

47http://www.tnhealth.org/dphpmpfa.htm

Adulterated

3 % of

Adulteration 17.79 13.74 11.50 15.03 18.47 8.06

Working of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

in different States / UTs. - 2002 (commodity wise)

(E) No. of Samples Examined,

(A) No. of Samples found Adulterated/Misbranded.

NA Information not Available.

There is now a provision under the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act and Rules that in

extreme cases, life imprisonment could be awarded to those who commit food adulteration which

is extremely injurious for health. Though this provision exists, so far not one person has been

given this sentence.

The Softdrink pesticide controversy further affirms it.CSE (Centre for Science and

Environment's) blew the lid off the matter when it released a report on pesticide residues in 12

major cold drink brands sold in and around Delhi48. CSE had pointed out that regulations for

pesticide levels in soft drinks are weak in the country. Neither the Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act, 1954, nor the Fruit Products Order explicitly deals with the subject. The study

also highlighted the fact that India has no standards to define ‘clean' or ‘potable' water, and asked

the Union government to put in place legally enforceable water quality norms. The Joint

Parliamentary Committee also affirmed the same.

Further, The PFA lays emphasis on the prevention of adulteration of foods and is not

comprehensive enough to deal with the contamination of food through the animal feed and the

food chain. The apex industrial bodies like Confederation of Indian Industries (CII), Federation

of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and Central Food Technological

Research Institute (CIFTRI) have very strongly called for a complete overhaul of PFA in order to

harmonise it with the international standards set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

The PFA does not always keep pace with advances in the food processing sector. Moreover, PFA

rules sometimes appear to be drafted in a manner that goes beyond the mere establishment of

minimum product quality specifications, by prescribing recipes for how food products are to be

manufactured.

Obviously, this demand from the food industry is to protect the health of the people but at the

same time there is a concern that food safety standards by other countries are being used against

India as non-tariff barriers to stop/restrict exports from India to the developed countries.

If we take a cursory look at the quality of food commodity being sold in the domestic market and

PFA functionaries, who are more than 6000 Food Inspectors, the domestic market challenges

towards food safety standards come to the fore. These typical Food Inspectors very often have no

scientific background, but orientation is towards legal technicalities. Any re-orientation of food

laws may not have any incentive to perform their duties diligently and honestly.

In theory, producers or traders who supply adulterated/contaminated produce can be taken to

court and fined or imprisoned, if found guilty. But there are some problems in implementing the

Act. It is a very long way from the central food laboratory to the court room and the whole Act is

unable to guarantee food safety at one hand and it also does not restrict import of unhygienic,

expired, badly labelled products from other countries. It is very important that the sampling

procedure is standardised and it is transparent which does not happen in PFA. The procedure for

formulation of standards should be participatory and all stake-holders should be consulted. With

regard to certification the emphasis should be on process control rather than the final product

48 (see:"COLANISATION'S DIRTY DOZEN", Down To Earth, August 15, 2003)

inspection. The procedures for inspection and drawing samples should be laid down in

accordance with the standards prescribed and should be in tune with the international practice.

The appeals process, however, is cumbersome and time consuming. All imported products must

adhere to the rules as specified in the regulation, including the labelling and marking

requirements.

Indian food laws are mostly archaic and the occasional law that does appear attractive seems

so only on paper. It is due to the lack of coordination among the various ministries. As a

remedial measure, it is argued for the creation of one central food regulatory authority that

will ensure formulation of more workable laws.

There should streamline of the laws to avoid overlaps in product coverage. For instance,

quality standards for canned fruit products are set by the FPO, the Agricultural Produce

(Grading and Marketing) Act, 1937, and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA),

1954. Moreover, under the PFA, the offence and the punishment are the same whether the

adulteration is grave or minor. What is more, it specifies a list of additives that can be used

in food products, thereby making the use of anything else a case of adulteration49.

It  is to be noted, that in the US, only two agencies control most of the food regulations.

Though the US has many laws and sub-agencies involved in implementing food regulations,

there is a clear understanding about the jurisdictions and responsibilities of each. Same

should be adopted in India.

On adapting foreign laws, the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP50) food

safety system should be made a norm in the domestic market.

Further, quality control should be issued at the micro level — the plant level and the supply

chain.

49 TAKING a cue from the Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) controversy, the government has decided to make changes

in the level of monosodium glutamate permitted in food.

It was found that the present one per cent limit allowed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration A (PFA), 1976

(amended) was even lower than the natural level found in so fruits and vegetables. The PFA does not clarify

whether the one per cent level is the amount in addition to that naturally present or is the total amount found The

Act is being reviewed as it contains so many outdated provisions. The PFA doe" not permit the entry of diet Coke

ano diet Pepsi as they contain a substance called aspertin. There is a fee[Z" among government officials KFC

controversy has adversely affected the inflow of foreign investment.

50The HACCP, which has its origins in the US National Aeronautical and Space Application (NASA) Center, is a system

that looks out for potential risks at critical points in the production cycle and then identifies appropriate control

and monitoring mechanisms to ensure safety of the product. In NASA, it was used as a way of guaranteeing the

food provided to astronauts in the 1960s. Now, it is mostly used by the food industry.

Conclusion

The act is in at least one sense, perfectly representative of the nation’s approach to combat social

problem confronted with the social problem, the government has constituently chosen to enact a

Adulterant Foods Commonly

criminal law banning the anti social conduct an important characteristic of crime.

The enforcers which mean the government, municipal bodies and all others responsible directly

or indirectly with the control of food adulteration will opine that the control of this menace needs

Lathyrussativus

a number of measures; only legal enforcement will not be enough. The basic requirements are

providing adequate food supply at a reasonable price, setting up of realistic food standards which

(Khesari dal)

are enforceable and which can be attained by majority of the traders (not only the big food

industries but the common agricultural producers, traders and the medium and petty food

processor), the minimum basic honesty on the part of the traders and the law enforcers, a band of

committed inspectorate staff and of course, a harsh deterrent punishment for those who commit

this crime.In the past five decades, the nature of food industry has changed. The market for

processed and pre-packed food has expanded tremendously. The food industry deploys

sophisticated and expensive food processing technology. There has been a revolution in creation

and use of newer packaging materials to give protection to articles of food. The law needs to be

revised to take stock of these practices. Law should not only continue to deter food adulterators,

but it should also be revised to be optimum in its effect, severe on violators and facilitators to

others.

The consumers' view is certainly most important because the prevention of food adulteration

machinery is designed for their benefit. The consumers feel by and large that an honest

enforcement will certainly reduce the crime and along with that is the need to award harsh

punishment, not only the provision of punishment under the law.  Consumers can play a very

vital role in food adulteration thus consumer awareness needs to be done.

Diseases & Health

Involved

Effects

Mixed in other pulses like

cow pea (arhar/toor dal) or

as Khesari dal alone

Lathyrism (crippling

spastic paraplegia or

Lower limb paralyses)Khesari

Dal has a toxic Amino acid

APPENDIX-I

Stearin (fat derived

from palm oil)

&  tallow (animal

fat)

Oxytocin hormone

injection

(Administered to

cattle to increase

the milk output)

Washing powder Ice Cream Gastric irritation leading

Spurious desi ghee

(clarified butter), yellow

butter

Traces reported from

Bovine Milk samples

known as Beta oxalyl amino

alanine. Cases Widely

reported from Bihar and

parts of U.P

Digestive problems,

prolonged usage may

cause accumulation of

cholesterol in the blood

vessels

Even traces are enough

to cause

Abortions, still births,

sterility & kidney damage

Argemone seeds

Argemone oil

Mustard seeds

And oil

Responsible for the Dropsy

outbreak in India during the

nineties

to peptic ulcers in

extreme cases

Epidemic dropsy,

Glaucoma,

Cardiac arrest

Methanol Cheap Alcoholic liquors.

Responsible for Hooch tragedy

and other similar instances

throughout the country.

Food grains, pulses etc. Damage digestive tract

Blurred vision, blindness,

death

Sand, marble chips,

stones, filth

Foreign leaves or

exhausted tea

leaves, saw dust

artificially coloured

Molasses Honey Digestive problems

Chalk powder  Sugar, salt Contaminated chalk

Tea Injurious to health,

cancer

powder may contain

spores of pathogens like

ascaris, tapeworm

TCP Oils Paralysis

Rancid (spoilt due

to microbial action)

oil

Oils Destroys vitamin A and

E

Artificially

coloured foreign

seeds, papaya seeds

Calcium carbide

Used for artificially

ripening banana,

mangoes ect.

As a substitute for cumin

seed,

Poppy seed, blackpepper

Traces detected in fruits like

banana, mangoes etc.

Injurious to health

Consumption of such

fruits leads to

Diarrhoea

Ulcers,

Miscarriages

Mineral oil (white

oil, petroleum

fractions) & linseed

oil

Edible oils and fats, Cancer

Castor oil Groundnut oil Can cause abortion in

Mobile oil Used to impart a shiny

appearance to vegetables

like brinjal, tomatoes etc.

pregnant women when

amount adulterated goes

beyond 0.7 mg/kg of

body weight.

Harmful for the

Gastrointestinal also

causes respiratory

problems

Deleterious

chemicals

(Food colours,

additives)

Lead chromate Turmeric whole and

Foods involved Diseases/

Health effects

Anemia, abortion,

paralysis, brain damage

Metanil Yellow

(Not permitted by

the PFA*)

Rhodamin –B

(Not permitted by

the PFA*)

powdered, mixed spices,

pulses

Ice Creams, Candies,

Sweets like

Laddoos&Jalebies, dishes

like chicken tandoori

etc

Sweets like GulabJamuns

and Halwas

Male reproductive

defects like decreased

sperm count etc

Cancer

Orange II

(Not permitted by

the PFA*)

Congo red &

Butter Yellow

(Not permitted by

the PFA*)

Sudan I

(Not permitted by

the PFA*)

Malachite green Used to colourparwal&

Orange coloured sweets

like rasgullas

Cancer

Biscuits, Sweets and Cakes Carcinogenic on

prolonged usage

Red Chilli Powder Carcinogenic

Carcinogenic

peas

Ketchups, Jams, Jellies etc May cause allergies and

Sodium benzoate

(Preservative)

asthma according to the

American Academy

Allergy, Asthama&

Immunology

Anaemia

Copper Sulphate

(blue coloured)

Used to artificially

colourvegetables like Lady

fingers &Parwal

Saccharin Used as an artificial

Brominated

Vegetable oils

sweetener. Since it is 300-500

times sweeter than sugar.

Added to citrus

(orage,lemon)flavored drinks

Proven to the cause of

Urinary Bladder cancer

in mammals

Proven carcinogen

(B.V.O) to maintain their

Ajinomoto/

Monosodium

Glutamate (MSG)

Characteristic cloudy

appearance

A flavor enhancer in

prepared foods.

It was responsible for the

Kentucky Fried Chicken

(KFC) controversy in New

Delhi during the Nineties

Produces “Chinese

restaurant Syndrome”

Causing some people to

have a

Burning. sensation in

neck and fore arms,

tightness in the chest and

headache

Tin (cans) Food stored in cans Colic pains even

vomiting in some cases

Zinc (food

containers)

Mercury Mercury fungicide treated

Canned Foods Colic pains even

vomiting in some cases

Brain damage, paralysis,

death

seed grains or mercury

contaminated fish



Arsenic Fruits such as apples sprayed

over with lead arsenate

Barium Foods contaminated by rat

poisons (Barium  carbonate)

Cadmium Fruit juices, soft drinks, etc.

in contact with cadmium

Dizziness, chills, cramps,

paralysis, death

Violent peristalisis,

arterial hypertension,

muscular twitching,

convulsions, cardiac

disturbances

‘Itai-itai (ouch-ouch)

disease,  Increased

plated vessels or equipment.

Cadmium contaminated

water and shell-fish

Lead Drinking Water coming

Aluminium as thin

foils

from lead coated pipelines,

food stored in polythene

bags, natural and processed

food

Decoration of Sweet meats,

instead ofsilver foils

salivation, acute gastritis,

liver and kidney damage,

prostrate cancer

Lead poisoning (foot-

drop, insomnia, anemia,

constipation, mental

retardation, brain

damage)

Prolonged consumption

may lead to neurological

problems like

Alzheimer’s disease .

Carbofuran Brinjals

Developmental defects

and Cancer

To give a fresh purple

appearance to them

Cauliflowers

To give a fresh white

appearance to them

i.

Phosphomidon

e

ii. Methyl

Parathin

iii.

Monocrotopho

s

Developmental defects

and Cancer

 PFA : Prevention of Food Adulteration ( Act), 1954

APPENDIX-II

Food article Adulteration Test

Wheat flour Excessive sand &

dirt

Shake a little quantity of sample with

about 10 ml. Of Carbon tetra chloride

and allow to stand. Grit and sandy matter

will collect at the bottom.

Excessive bran Sprinkle on water surface. Bran will float

on the surface.

Chalk powder Shake sample with dil. HCl

Effervescence indicates chalk.

 Mustard oil Argemone oil Add 5 ml, conc. HNO3to 5 ml. sample.

Ghee (Clarified

butter)

Mashed Potato

Sweet Potato, etc.

Shake carefully. Allow to separate yellow,

orange yellow, crimson colour in the

lower acid layer indicates adulteration.

Boil 5 ml. Of the sample in a test tube.

Cool and a drop of iodine solution. Blue

colour indicates presence of Starch.

colour disappears on boiling &

reappears on cooling.

  Vanaspati Take 5 ml. Of the sample in a test tube.

  Synthetic

Colouring Matter

Pulses/Besan Kesari

dal(Lathyrussativus

)

Add 5 ml. Of Hydrochloric acid and 0.4

ml of 2% furfural solution or sugar

crystals. Insert the glass stopper and

shake for 2 minutes. Development of a

pink or red colour indicates presence of

Vanaspati in Ghee.

Pour 2 gms. Of filtered fat dissolved in

ether. Divide into 2 portions. Add 1 ml.

Of HCl to one tube. Add 1 ml. Of 10%

NaOH to the other tube. Shake well and

allow to stand. Presence of pink colour

in acidic solution or yellow colour in

alkaline solution indicates added

colouring matter.

Add 50 ml. Of dil.HCl to a small quantity

of dal and keep on simmering water for

about 15 minutes. The pink colour, if

developed indicates the presence of

Kesari dal.

Pulses MetanilYellow(dye) Add conc.HCl to a small quantity of dal

in a little amount of water. Immediate

development of pink colour indicates the

presence of metanil yellow and similar

colour dyes.

  Lead Chromate Shake 5 gm. Of pulse with 5 ml. Of

Milk Water



water and add a few drops of HCl. Pink

colour indicates Lead Chromate.

Put a drop of milk on polished vertical

surface. The drop of pure milk either

stops or flows slowly leaving a white trail



Urea



Ice Cream Washing Powder

behind it. Whereas milk adulterated with

water will flow immediately without

leaving a mark.

Take 5 ml of milk in a test tube and add

2 drops of bromothymol blue soln.

Development of blue colour after 10

minutes indicates presence of urea.

Put some lemon juice, bubbles are

observed on the presence of washing

powder

Common

spices like

Turmeric,

chilly, curry

powder,etc.

Colour Extract the sample with Petroleum ether

Black Pepper Papaya seeds/light

berries, etc.

Spices(Ground

)

Coriander

powder

  Common salt To 5 ml. Of sample add a few drops of

Powdered bran and

saw dust

Dung powder Soak in water. Dung will float and can be

and add 13N H2SO4 to the extract.

Appearance of red colour (which persists

even upon adding  little distilled water)

indicates the presence of added colours.

However, if the colour disappears upon

adding distilled water the sample is not

adulterated.

Pour the seeds in a beaker containing

Carbon tetra-chloride. Black papaya

seeds float on the top while the pure

black pepper seeds settle down.

Sprinkle on water surface. Powdered

bran and sawdust float on the surface.

easily detected by its foul smell.

Red Chilli Brick powder grit,

sand, dirt, filth, etc.

silver nitrate. White precipitate indicates

adulteration.

Pour the sample in a beaker containing a

mixture of chloroform and carbon

tetrachloride. Brick powder and grit will

settle at the bottom.

Turmeric

Powder

Rodamine Culture





Starch of maize,

wheat, tapioca, rice

Take 2gms sample in a test tube, add 5ml

of acetone. Immediate appearance of red

colour indicates presence of Rodamine.

A microscopic study reveals that only

pure turmeric is yellow coloured, big in

size and has an angular structure. While

foreign/added starches are colourless

and small in size as compared to pure

turmeric starch.

Lead Chromate Ash the sample. Dissolve it in 1:7

Sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and filter. Add 1

or 2 drops of 0.1% dipenylcarbazide. A

pink colour indicates presence of Lead

Chromate.

  Metanil Yellow Add few drops of conc.Hydrochloric

acid (HCl) to sample. Instant appearance

of violet colour, which disappears on

dilution with water, indicates pure

turmeric. If colour persists Metanil

yellow is present.

Rub the cumin seeds on palms. If palms

turn black adulteration in indicated.

Cumin seeds

(Black jeera)

Asafoetida

(Heeng)

  Chalk Shake sample with Carbon tetrachloride

Grass seeds

coloured with

charcoal dust

Soap stone, other

earthy matter

Shake a little quantity of powdered

sample with water. Soap stone or other

earthy matter will settle at the bottom.

(CCl4). Asafoetida will settle down.

Saffron

Coloured dried

tendrils of maize

cob

Honey Water

Food grains Hidden insect

infestation

Tea

Coloured leaves



 Used tea



Iron fillings

Coloured

Green

vegetables like

pointed gourd

(parwal),

Brinjal, chillietc

Malachite green

Decant the top layer and add dil.HCl to

the residue. Effervescence shows

presence of  chalk.

Pure saffron will not break easily like

artificial. Pure saffron when allowed to

dissolve in water will continue to give its

colour so long as it lasts.

A cotton wick dipped in pure honey

burns when ignited with a matchstick. If

adulterated presence of water will not

allow the honey to burn, if it does will

produce a cracking sound.

Take a filter paper impregnated with

Ninhydrin (1% in alcohol.) Put some

grains on it and then fold the filter paper

and crush the grains with hammer. Spots

of bluish purple colour indicate presence

of hidden insects infestation

Rub leaves on white paper, artificial

colour comes out on paper.

Tea leaves sprinkled on wet filter paper.

Pink or red spots on paper show colour

Move a magnet through the sample. Iron

will stick to the magnet.

Take a small part of the sample and place

it over a moistened white blotting paper,

the impression of the colour on paper

indicates the presence of malachite green

ABBREVIATIONS

AGMARK Agricultural Marketing

APEDA Agro Processing Export Development Authority

ASI Annual Survey of Industries

BIS Bureau of Indian Standards

CAC Codex Alimentarius Commission

CFTRI Central Food Technological Research Institute

CII Confederation of Indian Industries

CSE Centre for Science and Environment's

DMI Directorate of Marketing and Inspection

EEC European Economic Community

EFR Excise and Food Adulteration Report

FAC Food Adulteration Cases

FAJ Food Adulteration Journal

FAO   Food Adulteration Order

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

FICCI Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry

FPC The Fnlit Products Order

FPI Food Processing Industry

FPO Foodstuff of Plant Origin

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GMP Good Manufacturing Practice

GVA Gross Value Added

HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points

ISO International Organization Standardization

KAU Kerala Agricultural University

MFPI Ministry of Food Processing Industries

MFPO Meat Food Products Order

MHFW Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

MIS Management Information System

NABL National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration

Laboratories

PFA Prevention of Food Adulteration Act

PFAJ Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal

SDP State Domestic Product

SSI Small Scale Industry

UNO United Nations Organization

WHO World Health Organization

WTO World Trade Organization

Ram Lal  Vs. State of Rajasthan 2000

In this case sample of she-camel milk taken of which no standard is fixed .Accused was

acquitted by trial court as no standard has been fixed under the Act for such milk. The court

observed  that  there is no room for dissenting from the defence version that it was camel’s milk

that was sold to the Food Inspector — whether camel’s milk cannot be sold for human

consumption" Supreme Court unable to agree with the finding of the High Court that camel milk

is not fit for human consumption — in some States in India, particularly in Rajasthan, camel

milk is extensively used as edible article — different standards have been fixed for different

classes and designations of milk — the High Court, after holding that camel’s milk could not be

sold for human consumption, further held that the milk sold was not shown to be camel’s milk at

all. Nonetheless, learned single judge of the High Court, on the appeal preferred by the State,

convicted the appellant under Section 16(1) of the Act and sentenced him to rigorous

imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- — the report of the Public Analyst

showed that the sample was examined and found to contain 25% of added water and that the

milk fat was 4.1% and the milk solid non-fat was 6.74%. — an article which is food does not

lose its character as food by the fact that it was also used or sold for other purposes — Rule 44 of

the Rules prohibits the sale of "milk which contains any added water". The Public Analyst who

tested the sample in the laboratory has reported that it contained 25% of added water. Hence the

offence to be found against appellant is Section 16(1)(a)(I) of the Act.

Shri Ranajoy Bose Vs. Shri A.B. Roy and another 2002.

The Court held each District Health Officer is authorised to exercise the power under Section

20(1) to accord consent under Section 20(1) P.F.A. Act in respect of the respective District in his

charge. Court dismissed the appeal.

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vs. Bansi Lal 2003

The question raised in this case was  whether the High Court, while exercising the powers of

revision under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can

entertain a new plea to consider and accord the benefit by enlarging on probation a person who is

under 18 years of age as envisaged under Section 20AA of the Prevention of food adulteration

Act, 1954. The court held that the question of law is left open; to be urged and decided in an

appropriate case thus the appeal is disposed of.

Mohinder Kumar  Vs. State of Haryana 2004

In this case appeal was made against conviction under Sections 7 and 16. The appellant was

sentenced to 1 year imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/.in this case  first accused mr. Naresh

kumar was acquitted. Food Inspector along with Doctor visited the shop of the first accused

Naresh Kumar and purchased 3 packets of iodized Tata salt ,the salt did not contain iodine as per

report of the Public Analyst. Further the report from the Central Food Laboratory also disclosed

that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Act and the Rules as it

contained only 5.0 ppm of iodine as against the required quantity of 15.0 ppm of iodine . First

accused Naresh Kumar filed application under section 14-A of the food adulteration Act .The

appellant herein was thus impleaded as the second accused -- the invoice allegedly issued by the

appellant herein was in the name of one Darshan Lal -- the first accused Naresh Kumar did not

adduce any evidence to show that he had purchased the adulterated article from the appellant

under the said invoice. The Trial Court proceeded on the assumption that the appellant admitted

the genuineness of the Bill No. 4987 and that he conceded that he had sold the Tata Salt to the

first accused Naresh Kumar but the evidence on record shows that the bill produced by the first

accused Naresh Kumar was standing in the name of one Darshan Lal and there is no evidence to

show that who was Darshan Lal, as  in the bill it is not specifically stated that it was sold in

packed condition. Only the weight of the article is shown as 3, presumably 3 quintal and the total

amount paid is Rs. 375/-, the value being Rs. 125/- per quintal -- in the absence of specific

evidence as to whom invoice was issued and to whom adulterated article was sold by the

appellant it is difficult to prove complicity of the appellant -- neither the Trial Court nor the

Appellate Court adverted to this aspect of the case. The Court had ample power to invoke section

20(A) of the Act to prosecute the person who was really guilty of the offence punishable under

the Act. The conviction of the appellant was solely based on the invoice allegedly issued to

Darshan Lal. The Apex court held that  as the genuineness of the invoice is not proved before the

Court, the conviction and sentence against the appellant is not sustainable under the law, thus

conviction set aside.

Nalin Thakur and others Vs. State of Maharashtra 2004.

In this case appellants directors of a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of vanaspati.

the sample did not conform to the standard. In three cases person nominated arrayed as an

accused did not stated in the complaint that the appellants were responsible for the conduct of the

business of the company. Four other complaints filed against the appellants and the Board of

Directors quashed. The court held that if the prosecution is successful in producing any materials

before the trial court to show that if these appellants could be prosecuted either under Section

17(a)(ii) or section 17(4), the trial court would be at liberty to take action in accordance with law

thus the court quashed the complaint.

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Gendalal 2004.

As per High Court prosecution not maintainable. The High Court made acquittal on the ground

that there was nothing to show that the Food Inspector who had collected samples had undergone

the requisite training for three months. To this acquittal by High Court an appeal was made in

Supreme Court. The Apex Court observed when a question of this nature regarding competence

of an official is raised, it has to be taken before the Trial Court and thereby afford an opportunity

to the official concerned to place material in that regard. This was not done in present case, the

Court held that, it would be appropriate for the High Court to hear the matter afresh. Thus the

was  matter remitted to the High Court for a fresh consideration.

Dayal Singh  Vs. State of Rajasthan 2004.

In this case Sample was taken from a hard boiled sugar confectionary which found to contain

mineral oil, unpleasant smell and taste. The Court observed that application of the modified

standards to cases which arose before the amendment of the Rules, would be impracticable.the

Court further observed that as it is demonstrated by the facts of this case, the report of the Public

Analyst did not mention the percentage of mineral oil present in the sample at the relevant time,

thus mere presence of mineral oil, being an unwholesome ingredient, amounted to adulteration

and, therefore, it was not necessary for the Public Analyst to mention the percentage of mineral

oil found in the sample ,presence of mineral oil even after the amendment will amount to

adulteration if it is not of food grade, and not used as a lubricant, and if it is more than 0.2% by

weight. Further the apex court observed that a minimum sentence of six months R.I. prescribed

by law, Court not inclined to modify the sentence thus strict adherence to Prevention of food

adulteration Act and Rules is essential, for safeguarding the interest of consumers of articles of

food -- stringent laws will have no meaning if the offenders could go away with more fine. The

court  observed that a penal statute which create new offences is always prospective and a person

can be punished for an offence committed by him in accordance with law as it existed on the date

on which an offence was committed. minimum sentence of six months R.I. prescribed by law.

Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Ltd. and another  Vs. Union of India and others 2004.

 Question was raised regarding validity of notifications issued by the Food (Health) Authority

under Section 7(iv) of the Prevention of food adulteration Act, 1954, by which the manufacture,

sale, storage and distribution of pan masala and gutka (pan masala containing tobacco) were

banned for different periods. The Court observed that the power of banning an article of food or

an article used as ingredient of food, on the ground that it is injurious to health, belongs

appropriately to the Central Government to be exercised in accordance with the rules made under

Section 23 of the Act, particularly, sub-section (1A)(f). The state Food (Health) Authority has no

power to prohibit the manufacture for sale, storage, sale or distribution of any article, whether

used as an article or adjunct thereto or not used as food. Such a power can only arise as a result

of wider policy decision and emanate from Parliamentary legislation or, at least, by exercise of

the powers by the Central Government by framing rules under Section 23 of the Act. Thus the

impugned notifications are ultra vires the Act and, hence, bad in law, the impugned notifications

are unconstitutional and void as abridging the fundamental rights of the appellants guaranteed

under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

Further question was raised before court Regarding Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products

(Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and

Distribution) Act, 2003.The question before the court was is the above act  is directly in conflict

with the provisions of Section 7(iv) of the Prevention of food adulteration Act, 1954. The Apex

court observed that, the former Act is a special Act intended to deal with tobacco and tobacco

products particularly, while the latter enactment is a general enactment. Thus, the Act 34 of 2003

being a special Act, and of later origin, overrides the provisions of Section 7(iv) of the

Prevention of food adulteration Act, 1954 with regard to the power to prohibit the sale or

manufacture of tobacco products while are listed in the Schedule to the Act 34 of 2003.

State of Haryana Vs. Daya Nand 2004.

In this case sample of milk was taken  in which non solid fat was found to be 8.1% instead of

8.5% while solid fat was found to be 4.5% as against the requirement of 4%. Conviction by trial

court but acquittal by High Court on the assumption of improper stirring. The Apex court

observed that The High Court rather casually has come to an erroneous assumption that there

was improper stirring for which there is no foundation at all, The High Court could not have

substituted a factual foundation available on record, by an assumption, to give benefit of doubt to

the respondent, appeal was allowed and the order of the High Court set aside.

Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. 2004.

In this case sample of Besan taken was found adulterated. The trial Court as after considering the

entire material and hearing the parties acquitted accused. On appeal, Madhya Pradesh High

Court held that the appellant has contravened relevant provisions of the Act and was, therefore,

to be convicted. On appeal Apex Court observed Section 2(i)(c) deals with substitution of an

article by inferior or cheaper substance which affects injuriously the nature, substance or quality

thereof. In the Public Analyst's report there was no reference to this aspect. What would happen

if the Public Analysts' report in this regard even if Rule 44A was not in operation, does not

therefore, fall for consideration in this case. On that score alone the High Court's judgment is

indefensible and is accordingly set aside.

Further in this case question was raised regarding sale of Kesari dal. There was violation of Rule

44A of  Prevention of food adulteration Rules, 1955,according to which  sale of Kesari dal in any

form was forbidden. Even though the ash content was within permissible limit, accused-appellant

was to be convicted for violation of Rule 44A of the Rules. The trial Court had held though the

ingredients were within the permissible limit but because of the mixture of Kesari Dal, the article

could not be said to be adulterated ,there was no finding recorded by the Public Analyst that the

percentage of powder of Kesari as had been found in the sample, affected injuriously the nature,

substance and quality of the food article analysed. Accordingly, it was held that the sample

collected was not adulterated. High Court only referred to Rule 44A and held that adulteration

was established, the State Government concerned has to notify in the official gazette the date

with effect from which Rule 44A becomes applicable in the State. The apex Court observed

since Rule 44A was not applicable and was not in operation in the State of M.P. on the date of

alleged collection of samples Rule 44A could not have been applied to find the accused guilty.