Law and You > Criminal Laws > Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 > Chapter XV > Offences Related to Adulteration of Food (Ss. 274 and 275 BNS)
According to Section 270 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, a person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage. In this article we shall discuss offences related to adulteration of food and sale of such noxious food or drink.
Adulteration:
Under Section 3(a) of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, adulterant means any material which is or could be employed for making the food unsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded or containing extraneous matter.
Under Section 4(ia) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated—
(a) if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be;
(b) if the article contains any other substance which affects, or if the article is so processed as to affect, injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;
(c) if any inferior or cheaper substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;
(d) if any constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;
(e) if the article had been prepared, packed or kept under insanitary conditions whereby it has become contaminated or injurious to health;
(f) if the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption; rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption;”
(g) if the article is obtained from a diseased animal;
(h) if the article contains any poisonous or other ingredient which renders it injurious to health;
(i) if the container of the article is composed, whether wholly or in part, of any poisonous or deleterious substance which renders its contents injurious to health;
(j) if any colouring matter other than that prescribed in respect thereof is present in the article, or if the amounts of the prescribed colouring matter which is present in the article are not within the prescribed limits of variability;
(k) if the article contains any prohibited preservative or permitted preservative in excess of the prescribed limits;
(l) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, but which renders it injurious to health;
(m) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health: Provided that, where the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability in either case, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, then, such article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this sub-clause.
Explanation:
Where two or more articles of primary food are mixed together and the resultant article of food—
(a) is stored, sold or distributed under a name which denotes the ingredients thereof; and
(b) is not injurious to health, then, such resultant article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this clause.
Comparative Study BNS and IPC
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Change |
| S. 274 | S. 272 | Upper limit of fine is increased from one thousand to five thousand rupees. |
| S. 275 | S. 273 | Upper limit of fine is increased from one thousand to five thousand rupees. |
Section 274 BNS:
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 five thousand rupees, or with both.
This section prohibits adulteration of such food or drink which is intended for sale.
Ingredients of Section 274 BNS:
- adulterates any article of food or drink intended to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink; and
- The adulteration makes such article noxious i.e. harmful or poisonous.
Since the adulteration must be to make the article of food or drink noxious, an adulteration which does not make it noxious is not punishable under this section. Adulterating milk with water does not make the milk noxious but only adds to the profit margin of the person adulterating, and consequently this section is not applicable. Mixing fat with ghee does not entail liability under this section as the ghee does not become noxious by such adulteration.
Classification of Offence:
Non-cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate
Punishment:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 275 BNS:
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 five thousand rupees, or with both.
Ingredients of Section 275 BNS:
- Accused is selling food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink; and
- Accused has knowledge or there are reasons to believe that the food or drink, any article he is selling is noxious as food or drink.
Classification of Offence:
Non-cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate
Punishment:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
In Parle Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Thakore Pratapji Kacharaji, (1988) 1 GLR 183 case, the Gujarat High 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 the 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.
Conclusion:
Offences related to adulteration of food are not just a breach of legal norms—it is a direct assault on public health, consumer trust, and ethical standards. The deliberate contamination of food products for economic gain poses severe health risks, including long-term illnesses, food poisoning, and in some cases, even death. Despite the existence of stringent laws like the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Food Safety and Standards Act, the persistence of such offences highlights the need for more robust enforcement mechanisms, increased consumer awareness, and stronger penalties to deter offenders. Ss. 274 and 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with offences related to adulteration of food.
Legal provisions alone are not enough unless they are complemented by regular surveillance, efficient food testing infrastructure, and transparent food supply chains. Authorities must adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards adulteration and ensure swift prosecution and punishment for those who violate food safety standards. At the same time, consumers must be empowered through awareness campaigns to recognize and report instances of adulteration.
Furthermore, collaboration between government agencies, food manufacturers, and the public is essential to create a culture of food safety. Ethical practices must be encouraged within the food industry to uphold quality, integrity, and responsibility toward public health.
In conclusion, addressing food adulteration requires a multifaceted approach involving legal reform, strict implementation, public participation, and industry accountability. Only through concerted efforts can we ensure that the food reaching our plates is safe, unadulterated, and truly fit for consumption.
Related Topics:
- Public Nuisance: Definition (S. 270)
- Offence Related to Spread of Infectious Disease (Ss. 271 to 273)
- Offences Related to Adulteration of Drugs (Ss. 276-278)
- Offences Related to Environment (Ss. 279 and 280)
- Offences Affecting Public Safety and Convenience (Ss. 281 to 293, 297)
- Offences Related to Obscenity (Ss. 294 to 296)
For More Articles on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Click Here