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…

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 …

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, 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 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 …