Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955

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…

The State of Gujarat prosecuted Shaileshbhai Mansukhlal Shah and another under Sections 7(i) and (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The accused, dissatisfied with the public analyst's report, invoked Section 13(2) to obtain a second analysis of the food sample by the Central Food Laboratory. The tria…

The appellant, a kirana shopkeeper in Madhya Pradesh, was prosecuted under Sections 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for allegedly selling adulterated besan that contained kesari dal. The trial court acquitted him, holding that the ash content was within permissible limits and the m…

Mis Parakh Foods Ltd., the manufacturer of "Shaktimaan Refined Soyabean Oil", was prosecuted for alleged misbranding under Rule 37 D of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 after a public analyst claimed that the label’s pictures of various vegetables exaggerated the quality of the oil. The High Court held t…

The State of Maharashtra prosecuted Baburao Ravaji Mharulkar and others for selling ice cream that contained only 5.95% milk fat, below the 10% minimum prescribed by Paragraph A.11.02.08 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The trial court acquitted the respondents, holding that the rule wa…

The Delhi Administration prosecuted Puranmal for alleged adulteration of jal mirchi powder under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 after a public analyst reported nine live meal worms in a sample taken from his shop. The trial court held that the prosecution had not proved the powder was adulterated and acq…

The Supreme Court examined whether the addition of saccharin, an artificial sweetener, to supari (pan masala) violated the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The appellants were convicted under sections 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated supari containing s…

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 appellants, three brothers running a shop, were prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling tea dust that was found adulterated by the Public Analyst. The trial magistrate acquitted them, holding that the Public Analyst had not sent the report within 45 days as required by Rule 7(3) a…

Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. and its senior officials were charged with manufacturing adulterated Gutkha, violating Rule 62(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. A Judicial Magistrate issued summons, and the accused filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking…

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 small‑time tradesman, was convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling "Kesari coloured sweet supari sali" adulterated with a yellow basic coal‑tar dye. He argued that "supari" (betel nut) should be treated as a "fruit‑product" or a "flavouring agent" under Rules 23, 28 and…

The State of Himachal Pradesh prosecuted Narendra Kumar (accused No.1) and a vendor (accused No.2) under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated sugar. A food inspector sealed a sample and sent it, along with a memorandum and seal impression, to a public analyst. The analy…

The Food Inspector of the Baroda Municipal Corporation purchased curd from the respondents' shop and sent samples for analysis, which showed marginal adulteration. The trial court convicted the respondents under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, but the Sessions Judge acquitted them on the ground that the …

Dayal Singh was convicted under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling hard‑boiled sugar confectionery that contained mineral oil, which at the time was deemed an unwholesome ingredient and amounted to adulteration. While his appeal was pending, the Rules were amended to permit m…

A food inspector seized samples of orange drink and vanaspati ghee from the godowns of Lipton India Ltd and Hindustan Lever Ltd and, after a public analyst’s report, found them adulterated and mis‑branded. Complaints were filed under sections 7 and 16 read with section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 195…

The Calcutta Municipal Corporation filed a special leave petition challenging the High Court’s order that quashed prosecution of Pawan K. Saraf for alleged adulteration of compounded asafoetida under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The trial court had relied on a Public Analyst’s report finding the sampl…

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 Municipal Corporation of Delhi appealed the acquittal of Tek Chand Bhatia, a wholesale dealer in cashew nuts, who was charged under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling insect‑infested nuts. Samples taken from his shop were found to be infested by more than 20% insects. The Supreme Court examin…

S.S. Dhanoa, an IAS officer, was deputed as General Manager of the Super Bazaars run by the Cooperative Store Ltd., a society registered under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act. He was charged under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated honey and argued that he was a public servant under cl…

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 Food Inspector purchased a bottle of synthetic syrup (sarbath) from the shop of Benny Thomas and sent the sample for analysis, which showed it to be adulterated. Thomas was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sections 7(1) and 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and relevant Rules. O…

The Supreme Court examined criminal prosecutions under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 against manufacturers of pan masala and mouth freshener whose products contained saccharin at 2000 ppm and 2450 ppm, exceeding the limits prescribed by Rule 47 of the 1955 Food Adulteration Rules. T…

The State of Punjab filed criminal proceedings under Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 against a vendor, a dealer and a manufacturer of vanaspati after a food inspector took a 1.5 kg sample by opening one sealed tin of 16.5 kg and found the product adulterated. The Punjab & Haryana High Cour…

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 …