9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of food adulteration rules regarding milk fat content in ice cream sample. Analysis: The case involved a sample of ice cream purchased by a Food Inspector, which was found to contain only 5.95% milk fat, below the prescribed minimum of 10% as per the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The Chief Judicial Magistrate initially deemed compliance with the standard impossible, citing the standard for buffalo milk at 5% as a reference point. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that there are methods to achieve the required milk fat content in ice cream, such as heating milk to reduce water content or adding cream with higher milk fat content. The Court emphasized that the low milk fat content did not render the ice cream injurious to health, but it was still considered adulterated under the law. The Court referred to Section 2(ia)(1) and 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which define adulteration based on falling below prescribed standards, whether injurious to health or not. The specific standard for ice cream, kulfi, and chocolate ice cream in Appendix B was 10% milk fat, making the ice cream in question adulterated under Section 2(ii)(m) of the Act. Consequently, the first and fourth respondents, who were partners in the firm selling the ice cream, were convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act and sentenced to three months' imprisonment and a fine each. Regarding the other respondents, the Court found no evidence linking them to the business's conduct, leading to their acquittal. The judgment highlighted the imposition of the minimum sentence due to the offense's age and the Court's intervention in an acquittal order, considering it a first offense. The detailed analysis emphasized the importance of complying with food adulteration standards and the legal consequences for non-compliance, even if the adulteration does not pose a direct health risk.
|
