Supreet kaur
Food is the basic necessity of every human being. The quality of our life depends upon the food we eat. Lack of healthy food causes malnutrition. So, an individual’s health depends heavily upon the food. Not only the food, but our body needs healthy food. People usually prefer fruits and veggies over packaged food and above that give preference to homemade food.
But it is not possible for us to cultivate or produce every ingredient needed to make food. But buying any product from market is a big challenge today due to lack of non-availability of qualitative food items. The quality of food is reduced by mixing them with substances of inferior quality. This practice is known as food adulteration.
What is Food Adulteration
Food adulteration is the contamination of food items by mixing the natural food items with adulterants. Adulterants are basically cheaper ingredients which can be either eatable or non-eatable. Adulterants lowers the quality of food thus making them unfit for consumption. Section 3(1)(a) of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 explains the same “as any material which is or could be employed for making the food unsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded or containing extraneous matter.”
Adulteration is done for commercial purposes since mixing a cheaper adulterant increases the quantity of food items and producers can make profit by selling cheap quality products at higher prices. The adulterants are carefully chosen so that they are not prima facie detectable.
Need for regulation
Food adulteration exploits a consumer economically as the consumer is paying high prices for cheap products. Moreover, the health of a consumer is compromised for the sake of economic benefit. Like, milk is usually adulterated with water or starch powder and pulses are adulterated with dyed, lead chromate which may cause stomach disorders. Edible oils are mixed with mineral oil, artificial colors, castor oil etc., which may cause gallbladder cancer, allergies or even cardiac arrest and the list of common adulterated items go long.
Moreover Article 21 of the Indian Constitution envisages the Right to Life, which also includes the right to health[1]. So, right to health is a fundamental right and the state is under an obligation to protect our health and ensure that one’s health is not compromised for other’s gain.
The legislation governing adulteration are: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the Milk and Milk Products Order 1992, the Fruit Product Order, 1955 and the Meat Food Product Order 1993, but these all were replaced by Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006.
Position Under Indian Penal Code, 1860
Chapter XIV of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter as IPC) contains offences against public health, safety, convenience, decency and moral. Section 272 of Chapter XIV contains penal consequences for adulteration.
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 it 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.”
This Section seeks to punish two persons:
- One who sells the adulterated article: If a retailer adulterates any food say pulses with pebbles etc., he can be made liable under this Section. Opening a shop to sell the adulterated food is a clear intention to sell that food. Giving general offers through advertisements also imply an intention to sell the product.
- One who knows that the adulterated article will be sold: It includes the producers and the manufacturers who have done adulteration with reasonable knowledge that the adulterated product is to be consumed later. For example, if during manufacturing, chips are adulterated with, say a black speck, it amounts to an offence under Section 272 since the manufacturer clearly knows that his product will be sold.
Essentials required to commit an offence under Section 272
1. Intention: To constitute an offence under Section 272, intention to sell the adulterated product is an essential ingredient. If the person selling the adulterated product has no knowledge that the product is adulterated, he cannot be held liable. He can be made liable under Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 but not under Section 272.
2. Noxious product: It is essential that the adulteration is to such an extent that it can make that food article harmful for one’s health. As the US Food and Drug Administration has said, “It is economically impractical to grow, harvest, or process raw products that are totally free of non-hazardous, naturally occurring, unavoidable defects.”
So, some types of defects can be allowed in the food which are not hazardous to human health. For example, the chocolate we eat contains one rodent hair per 100 grams and this is legally allowed since it is not harmful.
State Amendments to Section 272
Looking into the seriousness of the practice of adulteration, the states like Uttar Pradesh[2], West Bengal and Orissa have amended Section 272 and increased the punishment to imprisonment for life along with fine.
Punishment
The offence of adulteration is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine of maximum Rs. 1000 or with both. The offence is non-cognizable, bailable, and non-compoundable and can be tried by any magistrate.
Section 273: Sale of noxious food or drink
“Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or 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, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
Section 273 does not specifically talk about adulteration, but it can be inferred that if someone has the knowledge that the product is adulterated, even though he himself hadn’t caused adulteration, he can made liable under this Section.
Since adulterated product can be noxious for our health, so one should not let adulterated articles to be sold. So, promoting an adulterated product if one has the knowledge that it is adulterated is also punishable under Section 273. The punishment under both the Sections is same.
Whether any Specific legislation can repeal the provisions of IPC related to adulteration?
Since we had Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter as PFA ACT) which specifically dealt with adulteration. Section 25 of the PFA ACT, sought to repeal any law corresponding to the PFA ACT, which was in force before the commencement of PFA ACT. The Act also repealed any law, regulations, rules, bye laws, which were inconsistent or repugnant with the PFA ACT. Does this mean that Section 272 and Section 273 of Indian Penal Code stands repealed?
This question was answered in Parle Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Thakore Kacharaji [3], wherein a complaint was filed against the petitioners under Section 272 and Section 273 of IPC, 1860 and Section 16 of PFA ACT, 1954. The complainant used to sell drinks which included “thumbs up” which was supplied by the petitioners. Once a customer bought the bottle of thumbs up from the complainant and found that it contained insects. This was brought to the notice of petitioners by the complainant, but they did not reply which compelled the complainant to file the said complaint. It was contended on behalf of the counsel appearing for the petitioners that the complaint cannot be filed under Section 272 and Section 273 of IPC since this section stands repealed by Section 25 of PFA ACT, 1954.
The court laid down that:
- Section 272 and Section 273 of IPC are not a “corresponding law” to the provisions of PFA ACT, 1954 since Section 16 of the Act provides for stricter punishment whereas under Section 272 of IPC, the punishment is less severe. Also, to constitute an offence under Section 272, mens rea is an important element which can be missing when the offence is brought under the PFA ACT.
- The provisions of IPC are not repugnant or inconsistent with the provisions of PFA Act, so no question of repeal arises under Section 25 of PFA ACT.
- Both, PFA Act and Section 272 or Section 273 of IPC have applicability for the offence of adulteration, but it must be seen that the offender is not punished twice.
Therefore, it can be concluded that Section 272 and Section 273 of IPC, 1860 still have applicability although we have specific legislation to deal with adulteration.
Conclusion
It can be concluded through the above research is that the punishment for adulteration under IPC is very less considering the gravity of offence which is compromising the health of people. So, to cure this remedy, we have specific legislation like Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 which provides for stricter punishment, moreover this Act has brought uniformity in the law relating to adulteration since earlier many states have different laws governing adulteration. So now, Sections 272 and 273 acts as a supplementary provision for matters relating to food adulteration.
- Suresh K. Koushal v. NAZ Foundation, AIR 2014 SC 563 ↑
- Narrated in Abhishek v. State of U.P. on 2 July 2019 ↑
- 1988 IGLR 183 ↑