Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

Vijendra was charged under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated buffalo milk. A food inspector took a milk sample in the presence of a public witness, sent it to the public analyst, and the analyst’s report indicated adulteration. The report was dispatched to Vijendra by registered post…

Alkem Laboratories Ltd, the marketer of a "sugarless" jelly manufactured by another company, was implicated after a food inspector seized samples from a retailer and a public analyst found sugar, constituting misbranding. The retailer later moved an application under Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration A…

The Delhi Administration appealed the acquittal of Vidya Gupta, a sweet shop vendor, who was charged under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for storing adulterated ghee used to make jalebis. The Supreme Court held that Section 7, read with its explanation, deems any person who stores adulterated food for t…

Thana Singh, an undertrial accused of an offence under the NDPS Act, had been detained for over twelve years without trial despite repeated bail refusals. The Supreme Court examined whether such prolonged detention violated the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Relying on earlier decisions tha…

The Centre for Public Interest Litigation filed a writ petition seeking a separate expert committee to examine the health effects of soft drinks, especially on children, and to compel the Union of India to impose stricter regulatory controls, labeling, and advertising standards. The Court examined whether the existing …

The petitioners, Ram Nath and others, challenged prosecutions under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for alleged adulteration and sale of noxious food, arguing that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) had an overriding effect. The State of Uttar Pradesh contended that simultaneous prosecut…

The appellant, a Mahila cooperative society, challenged the award of a contract for supplying fortified blended food under the Integrated Child Development Scheme, arguing that the eligibility criteria in the Expression of Interest (EOI) were arbitrary and that the contract period should be limited to one year. The Hig…

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer of sweetened carbonated water, was prosecuted after a public analyst reported the presence of the pesticide carbofuran (0.001 mg/L) in its product, alleging adulteration under Rule 65 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and Section 2(ia)(h) of the Preven…

The appellant, M/s Sri Mahavir Agency, a vendor, bought packaged pan‑masala (Pan Parag) from the manufacturer M/s Kothari Pouches Ltd. and sold it to customers. Samples seized from a buyer’s premises were tested and found to be below the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, leading …

The appellant, a director of Bharti Retail, was charged with misbranding food products on 29 November 2010 under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA). Although the PFA was still in force, the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) – including its penalty provision (Section 52) and overriding clause (…

The appellants were convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PoFA) for selling adulterated curd and various food items, receiving six months' imprisonment and fines. They sought release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, arguing that Section 20AA of PoFA, which excluded probation, …

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and five others were charged under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act for allegedly selling adulterated Kesar Pista ice‑cream. The Public Analyst’s report declared the sample adulterated, but one co‑accused invoked the right under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act to have a s…

The State of Rajasthan appealed against a Rajasthan High Court order that directed the State Government to fill 34 vacant Food Inspector posts and to replace medical officers with sanitary inspectors for enforcing the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The High Court had held that medical officers, though not trained…

The appellant, Hari Shankar Aggarwal, was named as a nominee in a complaint under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, based on information from the Commercial Tax Department, while the Local Health Officer had identified Devendra Singh Bhadauria as the director of the firm. Aggarwal cont…

The appellant, a food manufacturer, was charged under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act after a complaint by the Local Health Authority and was acquitted by a Metropolitan Magistrate. The State sought to appeal the acquittal in the Sessions Court under Section 378(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wh…

The appellants were convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for misbranding sugar‑boiled confectionery because the packages lacked the manufacturer’s address and date of manufacture. The conviction was upheld by the trial court, the district court and the Calcutta High Court, although the High Cou…

The Delhi High Court, in a public‑interest writ, ordered manufacturers of drugs and cosmetics (other than life‑saving drugs) to display symbols indicating whether the product contained vegetarian or non‑vegetarian ingredients. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing that the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules do …

A complaint was lodged in 1989 alleging adulteration of Dalda Vanaspati Ghee manufactured by Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL). The trial magistrate initially absolved the company’s directors and continued prosecution against the nominated officer, Nirmal Sen, who was later convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulter…

The appellant was convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling milk whose Milk Solid Non‑Fat (MSNF) content was 7.7%, below the statutory standard of 8.5%. He argued that the delay in analysis caused a marginal shortfall, that he was denied the right under Section 13(2) to have a second sam…

The Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenged the constitutionality of Rule 44‑1 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which prohibited the sale of non‑iodised common salt for human consumption. The petitioners argued that the rule violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and…

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of Rule 44 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which bans the sale and manufacture of non‑iodised common salt. Several writ petitions and transfer petitions challenging this rule were consolidated, and the Court allowed the transfer of five pending cases …

The Superintendent of a district jail was prosecuted under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 after a food inspector found rice and turmeric stored for prisoners to be adulterated. The prosecution alleged that the jail official had "stored" adulterated food, which under the Act is punisha…