Bringing uniformity to food adulteration laws

Food adulteration is a menace that is threatening the health of the country’s consumers today, and there are enough laws to deal with the problem. Apart from the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), there are provisions in other laws like in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to check food adulteration.

Yet, it continues unabated. Most often, food adulterators go scot-free because of certain loopholes in the legal system, particularly inconsistencies in the FSSA and the IPC relating to the quantum and nature of punishment. 

In light of the growing menace of the sale of adulterated and synthetic milk in different parts of the country, a public interest litigation was filed in the Supreme Court by Swami Achyutanand Tirt (AIR 2016 SC 362).

While delivering the judgment, the apex court highlighted the need for a relook at various provisions of the IPC relating to punishment for adulteration of food.

In the light of the SC’s observations, the Home Ministry referred the matter to the Law Commission of India. In its 264th Report, the Commission has suggested amendments to the IPC to bring uniformity in the quantum of punishment for those found guilty of food adulteration.

The FSSA is a comprehensive law which resulted in repeal of the erstwhile Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. One of the objects of FSSA was to bring under one umbrella the provisions relating to food adulteration scattered in other laws.

The IPC under the heading ‘Of Offences Affecting the Public Health, Safety, Convenience, Decency and Morals,’ prescribes punishment for adulteration of food or drink intended for sale (Sec 272) and sale of noxious food or drink (Sec 273).

The FSSA defines the words ‘adulterant’ and ‘unsafe food’, whereas Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC do not contain such words. The powers of the state officials to initiate action under IPC for food adulteration has been challenged in the case of Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd & Anr vs State of UP & Anr. These two sections of IPC are attracted only if it is shown that the adulteration is deliberate, intentional or with knowledge.

With regard to the quantum of punishment, too, the FSSA and the IPC differ. The Law Commission has observed that the punishments prescribed by the IPC are inadequate, firstly for adulteration that results in making food articles noxious, and secondly for actual sale of noxious food articles. It has said that the existing provisions are also incompatible and the maximum punishment of six months for such offences under the IPC is grossly inadequate.
Third, there are regional disparities. The states of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Odisha have amended the relevant sections of the IPC. Accordingly, those found guilty could be imprisoned for life and shall also be liable to fine. However, the court may impose a sentence of imprisonment which is less than imprisonment for life.

Modify relevant sections
In view of the above, there is a need to align various provisions of the IPC to be applicable to the whole country. The Law Commission’s recommendations try to do that. They have proposed modification to Sections 272 and 273 so as to bring the penal framework in it on a par with state amendments to the Code.

Whereas the state amendments to the IPC enhance the overall quantum of punishment, the report would like to prescribe punishment that is graded according to the nature of the act, intentional or otherwise, and the harm suffered by the victims of adulterated food.
The Law Commission has recommended substitution of Section 272 (adulteration of food or drink intended for sale) and has listed four categories of food adulteration and has recommended punishments accordingly.

The first category relates to making of such articles noxious as food or drink, intending to sell, where such adulteration does not result in injury. The punishment in such a case is imprisonment of six months and also fine upto Rs 1 lakh. The second category is adulteration that results in non-grievous injury, for which the guilty may be imprisoned upto one year and a fine which may extend upto Rs 3 lakh.

In the third category, if the adulteration results in a grievous injury, the punishment is an imprisonment of six years and a fine of upto Rs 5 lakh. The fourth category relates to adulteration with death. Here, the guilty may be imprisoned for not less than seven years, which may extend for life, including a fine of Rs 10 lakh.

However, the relevant courts have the discretion to impose a sentence of imprisonment which is less than imprisonment for life. The Law Commission has also recommended substitution of Section 273 (sale of noxious food or drink) which envisages similar recommendations.
One of the important recommendations of the Commission is that, the fine imposed shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim. Further, the fine imposed shall be paid to the victim. 

(The writer is Member, Central Consumer Protection Council)