Subject NOT available

10. The Committee have decided that the evidence given before them should be laid on the Tables of both the Houses in extenso.

11. The Committee considered the Bill clause by clause at their eighth to tenth sittings held on the 19th to 21st August, 1964, res- pectively.

12. The Committee considered and adopted the report on the 4th September, 1964.

13. The observations of the Committee with regard to the principal changes proposed in the Bill are detailed in the succeeding para- graphs.

14. Enacting Formula and Clause 1,—Amendments to enacting formula and clause 1 are consequential.

15. New Clause 2.—The amendments made in Section 2 of the principal Act are only consequential.

16- Clause 3 (Original Clause 2) .—The Committee feel that there- should be a specific mention in Section 3(2) (g) of the principal Act to enable agricultural interests also to be nominated. The clause has been amended accordingly.

The other amendment is consequential on account of the changes made in the nomenclature ot Ministries.

17. New Clause 5 (Original Clause 4).—The Committee are of the view that there should be a provision for the appointment of public Analysts by the Central Government to bring it in line with thP appointment of food inspectors. For this purpose section 8 of the principal Act is also proposed to be substituted suitably in this clause.

The other changes made in the clause are of drafting nature.

18. Clause 6 (Original Clause 5).—The Committee have made cer- tain drafting changes in the clause. They, however, recommend that, besides the Food Inspector, the vendor should also have a right to place his seal on the food samples, if he so desires, when they are taken for analysis, by suitably amending the rules.

19. Clause 7 (Original Clause 6).—The Committee are of the opinion that there should be a provision making it obligatory on the part of manufacturers, distributors and dealers of articles of food to give a warranty in writing, about the nature and quality of the articles sold, to the vendor. For this purpose a new Section 14 has been inserted. Section 14 in the original cliu.se 6 has been renumber- ed as Section 14A.

20. New Clause 8.—Tlie amendment made in Section 15 of the principal Act is consequential in nature,

21. Clause 9 (Original Clause 1),—The original clause 7 provided for awarding different punishments for the iirst, second, third and subsequent offences under the Act. For the first offence, the minimum sentence of imprisonment was six months, it the offence related to the import, manufacture, sale, etc. of adulterated, prohibited articles of food and with respect to offences under clauses (b), (c), and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 16, and for other offences there was no minimum sentence of imprisonment but only a maximum sentence of imprisonment up to a period ol two years. For the second, third and subsequent offences, of whatever nature, there were both maxi- mum and minimum sentences of imprisonment ranging from six months up to six years. The Committee, while agreeing that there should be a minimum sentence of imprisonment for all offences under the Act or the rules made thereunder, led that prescription of different punishments lor the first, second, third and subsequent offences may fetter the hands of the court in awarding higher punishment in the case of a first or second offence if it is so called for according to the gravity of the offence. To avoid this the Com- mittee have suggested that for all offences under the Act or the rules made thereunder, there should be a minimum sentence of imprison- ment for a term of not less than six months and of fine, of not less than one thousand rupees, and a maximum scnience ot imprisonment for a term of six years, whethei the offence be the first, second, third etc. However, in the case ot technical offences like the import, manufacture, sale etc. of an article oi iood which is adulterated undei sub-clause (1) of clause (1) of section 2 or which is misbranded under sub-clause (k) ot clause (ix) of section 2, the Committee feel that a discretion should be given to the court to award a lesser sentence of imprisonment and line than the minimum sentence ol imprisonment of six months and of fine ol one thousand rupees. The Committee also feel that the same discretion should be given to the court with regard to offences relating to the import, manufacture, saJe, etc. of any article oi food (not being adulterated or misbranded or prohibited) in con- travention of any ot the provisions of the Act or ol any rule made thereunder. Sub-section (1) of section 16 ot the Act has been modified suitably for the purpose,

The Committee consider that if any person in whose safe custody any article of food has been kept under .sub-section (4) of section JO ol the Act, tampers or in any other manner interferes wilh such article, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. But,

if such article oi food is sold or distributed and is subsequently found to be adulterated with any poisonous or other ingredient under sub- clause (h) of clause (i) of section 2, the Committee feel that the offence is a very serious offence and that the offender should be punishable with imprisonment for a term of six years and with line which should not be less than one thousand rupees. The new sub- sections (1A) and (IB) of section 16 inserted in the clause, are intend- ed to achieve this purpose.

Sub-section (1A) of section 16 proposed in the original clause has been renumbered by the Committee as sub-section (1C) and in that section, punishment for not giving a warranty has also been pro- vided. The Committee further feel that there should be a minimum fine of five hundred rupees, in addition to the sentence of imprison- ment, for not giving a warranty and also for the refusal to disclose the name of the person from whom the vendor purchased the article of food.

The Committee also feel that if any person convicted of an offence under the Act commits a like offence afteru ards, the court, before which the second or subsequent conviction takes place, should be empowered to order the cancellation of the licence, if any, granted to him under the Act. Suitable provision for this purpose has been proposed in the new sub-section (ID) of section 16.

22. Clause 10 (Original clause 8).—In view of the provision pro- posed in the new section 14 making it obligatory on the part ol the manufacturer, distributor and dealer of any article of food to give a warranty to the vendor legarding the nature and quality of such article, the Committee feel that the question of exercising reasonable diligence to ascertain that the article of food is or is not adulterated or misbranded, by the vendor, is unnecessary. Sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Act has been suitably recast.

The amendment to sub-section (3) of section 19 of the Act is only consequential.

23. New clause 12.—It has been brought to the notice of the Com- mittee that for want of a provision enabling the court, during the trial of an offence against the vendor of an article of food, to implead the manufacturer, distributor or dealer with respect to such article of food, many manufacturers, distributors and dealers in such article go scotfree. In order to have an effective check at all levels, the Com- mittee consider necessary to have a provision to the effect that if during the trial of any offence alleged to have been committed by any person, not being the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food, the court is satisfied on the evidence adduced before

it that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also involved in trie offence, the court may proceed against the manufacturer, distributor or dealer also. The new section 20A has been proposed by the Com- mittee for this purpose.

24. Clause 13 (uriginal clause 10) .-—The Committee are of the view that provision may be made in the rules providing for the cir- cumstances under which the licence, if any, granted to a person under the Act, may be cancelled. Necessary amendments for 1his purpose havG been made in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Act.

The amendments in sub-section (2) of section 23 of the Act are only to bring H in line with the model provision relating to laying of rules before the Houses of Parliament, suggested in paragraph 45 of the Seventh Report of the Committee on Subordinate Legislation (Second Lok Sabha).

25. Clause 14 (orig:nnl clause 11).—The amendment proposed to clause (a) of subjection (2) of section 24 of the Act is only conse- quential.

The changes made in clause (b) are similar to those made by the Committee in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 23, in clause 13.

26. The Joint Committee recommend that the Bill as amended be passed.

SAROJINI MAHISHI, NEW DKLHI;

Chairman,

The 4th September, 1964.

Joint Committee.

MINUTES OF DISSENT

r

The Bill as it has emerged from the Joint Committee has belied all expectations and falls far short of adequately deaMng with the adulteration menace rampant in the country.

We are passing through a period of food crisis. Food is not ade- quately available and whatever is found in the market is at an exor- bitant price, and that too is not pure. Anti-social elements, with the ulterior motive of making quick money, take; advantage of the scar- city and adulterate food on a large scale with all sorts of in-conceiv- able and inedible things and at times even with poison, thereby in- juring the health of the community. It is the biggest crime against humanity and oven public flogging may not be adequate for this often UP of deliberate genocide, but deterrent punishment alone can- not put a stop to this problem An incorruptible Government with an efficient administrative machinery insulated against all pressures, political and otherwise, 4 foolproof legislation and above all a cons- cious public opinion can only put a stop to this. We know many food adulterators are not prosecuted, and even some cases booked were withdrawn by the authorities because of some pressure, and they jolly well carry on their nefarious trade. The State Governments have signally failed to stop this widespread malpractice. Section 9 proposed in the amending Bill, as it stands, envisages the appoint- ment of Food Inspectors by Central and State Governments. Diarchy or dual responsibility has never worked successfully: so, to have the appo'ntment of Food Inspectors by two agencies will never wnrk satisiactorily It is now hi^h lime that full responsibility of dealing with this problem mav be squarely placed on the shuuldeis oi' the Central Government who should appoint Food Inspectors, have laboratories dispersed all o vr the country and administer the legisla- tion on prevention of fond adulteration.

Further, the food stuff or foodgrains have their regional origins whereas thev are distributed all over the country. Tt is urged that at their place of origin they should be certified by certain agency of the Central Government to be pure and unadultered by putting some mark, for example, T.S.T. or anv -ither. It will go a long wav to detect the real adulterator at a later stage

Lately the State Governments have been entering the field of trade in foodgrains. So, it is all the more imperative that the Cen- tre should be the only authority to enforce the legislation and should see that no discretion is made in giving exemplary punishment to the adulterator whether he is a private individual or a State bureaucrat.

As we are anxious that deterrent punishment be provided to the culprit, we are equally anxious that let not this legislation be an ins- trument of oppression and open flood gates of corruption. 1 cannot reconcile to the plea that independent witnesses are not feadfly available and the number of witnesses be reduced from "not less than two" to "one or more". I think two independent witnesses are "a must" to meet the ends of justice specially when consumers, all anxious to get pure food, will be readily available as witnesses.

Lastly, in this country there are different standards laid down for the same kind of food stuff by different Government agencies, e.g., (i) Rules under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (ii) Indian Standards Institute, and (iii) Agmark. We must have one standard laid down for the same food stuff throughout the country by all the agencies of the Government. The inclusion of a representative of the Indian Standards Institute is a welcome sign. The standardisation of the food stuff by the expert body should precede over all actions of the Government in this regard.

NEW DELHI;

P. K. DEO-

The 5th September, 1964.

II

While welcoming wholeheartedly the Prevention of Food Adul- teration (Amendment) Bill, 1963, I am constrained to say that the proposed Section 9 in the amending Bill is not only vague but falls far below the general expectations.

The said Section 9 says that "The Central Government or a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications to be food inspectors for such areas as may be assigned to them by the Central Government or the State Government, as th* case mav b&."

The word "may" in the amending Bill does not make it obliga- tory on the Central Government to take up the responsibility of appointing the Food Inspectors in all' the State3 and leaves the responsibility with the State Governments as before, which I am Borry to point out, is enough to kill the very object of the Bill,

The State Governments, as we all know from the statistics, had miserably failed in arresting the countrywide menace of food adul- teration.

For very many contraventions cases are not instituted and even the few cases booked are withdrawn later by higher authorities because of local pressure.

It is well known that local politics play a major role in these matters. I know many instances wherein the local inspectors could not do much in the matter in the face of pressure by people who are politically or otherwise powerful.

The adulterating traders being very clever people are always alert and keep the local powers-that-be in good humour in several ways. As a result the culprits go scot-free and poor and innocent people are made to pay not only higher prices but subject them- selves to great dangers of food poisoning and other allied maladies on a large scale.

We are facing a critical food situation and the hope of early or easy recovery from it is not in sight- People are eating less now and pay for the same dearly too. The general health of poor and middle class people is already bad by malnutrition. Added to this is adulteration which makes far great danger to health.

It is imperative that the Central Government should come for- ward to assure the people that the food, however little it may be, Is pure and free from adulteration.

This could be possible only by the Centre taking up the entire responsibility of managing the machinery that we now set up to check the adulteration.

I em told that the power to appoint Food Inspectors is now in the Concurrent List and as such it is not possible to do so without amending the Constitution. We have amended our Constitution many times. To give poor people clean food if the Constitution requires an amendment, it should be done unhesitatingly. I would say this amendment would be most welcome to the people. The head of the Food Inspection Staff in the States should work under the Union Health Director and be responsible to him. I would sug- gest that this should be arranged for by agreement with the States Or by a suitable provision in the law.

NEW DELHI;

S. S. MARISWAMI.

The 5th September, 1964.

III

This amendment has brought the picture of the administration of this Act into proper perspective before the Committee.

It would have been better if the whole Act had been studied by the Law Commission and then suitably amended.

The object of the Act is laudable but its administration has not been free from the evils of corruption and although the Committee in its deliberations kept that aspect of the matter in view, yet it was felt that the corruption could not be ruled out.

The amendment regarding the first offender provided in clause 9 of imprisonment of not less than six months has been overdone according to me. It is well known that the reports of the so-called public analysts are not by Public Analysts themselves but by Labo- ratory Assistants of questionable experience and qualifications and as their report, subject to the report of the Central Food Laboratory is conclusive, there are thus chances of some members of the judi- ciary, who might be inexperienced, convicting some innocent and poor people—petty traders of villages—, who may not be able to enjoy the luxury of robust and sound legal advice. When first offenders under the Criminal law of the land ere given protection under the Probation of Offenders Act and under Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code, therefore, imposing the sentence of com- pulsory imprisonment on the first offender under this Act, will set at naught the present-day conception of administration of penal law. This amendment, in my opinion, is uncalled for.

The provisions of Section 20 (clause 11) regarding the authority to prosecute must be well defined particularly in view of the recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court in A.I-R. 1963 Supreme Cburt Page 1198 and in A.I.R. 1963 Orissa Page 158.

Provision made in Section 20A (clause 12) is not commendable end the prosecution should not be split up in this manner for it will create difficulties for the prosecution as well as for the accused. While I do not object to the principle behind it, I certainly cannot approve of the provisions as embodied in this section.

In the end I make one suggestion that the rules which also con- tain the standards as provided under Rule 5 require some deep consideration. These standards must only be fixed after calling upon the various interested Trade Associations or guilds to submit their views on the standards. The present standards prescribed under Rule 5 in Appendix B are in many cases highly defective

and in some cases reproductions of the British Pharmacopoeia and in others depict ignorance. The Table for Ghee, for example, is at places a sad reflection of geographical ignorance about States and of chaotic thinking. Scientific data could not have been marshalled in a worse form.

It ia also desirable that the public analysts should be enjoined to submit reports in specified and unambiguous manner. For example, it should not be enough for them to say that a coal tar dye has been, mixed with a particular substance but they must give the name of. the particular dye or colour which has been found mixed because not all dyes are injurious and the vague analysis often misleads the courts, and affects the prosecution both ways.

Subject to this note of dissent, I approve of the report.

NEW Vma; U. M. TRIVEDI.

The 7tfe September, 1964.

IV

We have carefully studied the provisions of the Bill as introduced in Lok Sabha as well as the various changes recommended by the Joint Committee in their report. While we agree that this legislation embodying the modifications suggested by the majority of the Com- mittee will mark an advance on the provisions of the parent Act, 37 of 1954, we are definitely of the view that it does not go far enough. The menace of adulteration of food has now assumed such alarming proportions end the nefarious activities of the anti-social, inhuman and unscrupulous merchants of death have proliferated to such an extent that a sterner approach to the problem is absolutely necessary in order to eradicate the evil, and to effectively tackle what ia fast becoming a veritable question of life and death for the com- mon man, who is finding it hard to get food at reasonable prices, and then what little he gets is neither clean nor pure.

The depredations of adulterators have never been so vile as they are today. Not only, for instance, are sand, stone, dirt and sawdust, but also filth and dung are grist to the adulterator's mill; his mis* deeds may bring death, disease and disability in their train, but he does not care, so long as he gets rich quick and makes his pile.

We are aware that the evil of adulteration has been thriving in the pervasive, pernicious climate of corruption in our country, which has become fouler during the last decade. Another highly contribu- tory cause has been the rather soft attitude, bordering on connivance, of certain high-ups in the ruling party and Government, who have covert, if not, overt links with some top-notch producers and traders who tamper with the people's food for personal profit. We are con- vinced that the ultimate cure of the evil lies in a radical transf orma- tion and purification of the socio-political climate, in a revolution of national character, for which the initiative must, in the main, be taken by those ensconced in high positions in society and in the Administration.

We hope this task will be undertaken in right earnest, jtnd far- thered by all those who- genuinely care for rapid social and economic progiress, irradiated by ethical, moral and spiritual values. It will have to be nothing short of a crusade. However, as a preventive and: punitive measure, the Bill, as amended by the Joint Committee, can better serve the purpose it has in view if the following modifications are incorporated therein: —

We believe that the maximum penalty for major offences of adulteration, particularly so if repeated, should be, not six years as recommended by the Committee, but death or imprisonment for life. Our suggestion finds valiant support in the view of a former Union Health Minister, Shri D. P. Karmarkar while he was in office, that adul- terators of food are potential murderers who deserve the highest penalty. So also the Minister of Health, West Bengal, who gave evidence before the Joint Committee, described adulterators as worse than murderers. If the adulterator's calculated crime can cause death, why should not capital punishment bd prescribed for such a criminal, in any case during the Emergency, and even thereafter, so long as capital punishment is not abolish- ed by law? In this connection I cannot help recalling what the former Finance Minister, Shri Morarji Desai, replying to a suggestion I had made in the Lok Sabha that adulteration be made punishable with flogging, had said, that he would prefer hanging, being less barbarous than flogging. I wonder whether he expressed the then Gov- ernment's view. We also think that the habitual adul- terator's,—that is, after the second or third conviction,— assets should be confiscated, he should be deprived of civic rights including the franchise, and disqualified for

any public office or for membership of a legislature or local body. The penal provisions of the Bill, as amend- ed by the Committee will not prove deterrent enough.

We are sure that only draconian punishment meted out to a few culprits will go a long way towards bringing about a change In the many, and safeguarding the life and health of millions.

We trust that the machinery of inspection and analysis will be strengthened, streamlined and made cleaner, more honest and effi- cient. The Government should not shrink from taking action, Wherever necessary, against corrupt or inefficient staff.

One word more, and we have done. Now that Government will shortly take to trading in f oodgralns, and, may be, in other articles of food too later, the penal provisions of this measure, made more stringent and drastic by our recommendations aforesaid, should apply equally to those agencies or employees of Government who may be found guilty of adulteration. This observation has been necessitated by the recent report of a public analyst of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, that the sugar distributed by the Maharashtra Government under the directions of the Centre, was sub-standard. What is one to do, If the fence itself were to eat up the crop?

NEW DELHI;

H. V. KAMATH NIRANJAN SINGH.

The 1th September, 1964.

Bill No. 59 B of 1963

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION

(AMENDMENT) BILL, 1963

( As REPORTED BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE)

(Words sidelined or underlined indicate the amendments suggested

by the Committee; asterisks indicate omissions).

A BILL

further to amend the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifteenth Year of the Reoubli if India as follows:— — ^ ——

1. (2) This Act may be called the Prevention of Food Adultera tion (Amendment) Act, 1964-

Short title tad com- rnene*-

. ment.

(2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Govern- 5

ment may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.

2. In section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, 37 of 1954.

Amendment

of section 2.

10

(hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in clause (vii) and in sub-clause (2) of clause (viii), for the words "the State Govern- ment", the Words "tha Central Government or the State Govern- ment" shall be substituted.

3. In section 3 of ****** the principal Act,— Amend, ment of section I. (i) in sub-section (2),—

(o) for clause (d), the following clause shall be substi- tuted, namely:—15

30

"(d) one representative each of the Departments of Food and Agriculture in the Central Ministry of Food and Agriculture and one representative each of the Central Ministries of Commerce, Defence, Industry and Supply and Railways, nominated by the Central Government:⁷':

(b) for clause (g), the following clause shall be substi- tuted, namely: —

"(g) two representatives nominated by the Central Government to represent the agricultural, commercial and industrial interests;";

5

(e) after clause (h), the following clause shall be in- serted, namely: —

10

36 of 1952

"(i) one representative nominated by the Indian Standards Institution referred to in clause (e) of sec- tion 2 of the Indian Standards Institution (Certification Marks) Act, 1952.":

(ii) in sub-section (3), for the brackets, letters and word "(g) and (b)", the brackets, letters and word "(g), (h) and

15 Amend- ment of section 7.

4. In section 7 of the principal Act, in clause (iv), for the words "with a view to preventing the outbreak or spread of infectious diseases", the words "in the interest of public health" shall be substi- tuted.

5. For sections 8 and 9 of the principal Act, the following sections

20 shall be substituted, namely: —

Substitution

of new

wctloru for

jecdonig

"nd9.

PwbHc

An"tyw".

25 "8. The Central Government or the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications to be public analysts for such local areas as may be assigned to them by the Central Government or the State Government, as. the case may be:

Provided that no person who has any financial interest in the manufacture, import or sale of any article of food shall be appointed to be a public analyst under this section.

30 Food lupccttrt.

9. (1) The Central Government or the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications to be food inspectors for such local areas as may be assigned to them by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be:

35

Provided that no person who has any financial interest in the manufacture, import or sale of any article of food shall be appointed to be a food inspector under this section.

IB of 1B6U

(2) Every food inspector shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of t he Indian P e n al Code and shall be officially subordinate to such authority as t he G o v e r n m e nt annoinUnc him. m av sDeeifv in this behalf."

6. In section 10 of t he principal Act,—5

Amend- ment of section 10.

(i) in clause (c) of sub-section (1), for the words "with a view to preventing the outbreak or spread of any infectious disease" the words "in the interest of public health" shall be substituted;

10

(ii) in sub-section (4), the following proviso shall be insert-

ed, namely: —

15

"Provided that where the fond inspector keeps such article in the safe custody of the vendor * * * he may require the vendor * "' to execute a bond for a sum of money equal to the value of such article with one or more sureties as the food inspector deems fit and the vendor shall execute th*" bond accoriinflv.":

so

(in) in sub-section (7), for the words "as far as possible, call not less than two persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take their signatures'^ the words "call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is -taken and take his or their signatures" shall be substituted.

7. For section 14 of the principal Act, the following sections shall

be substituted, namely:—

a5

"14. No manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food shall sell such article to any vendor unless he also gives a warranty in writing in the prescribed form about the nature and quality of such article to the vendor.

Substitu- tion of new iections for section 14. Manuftc- turerg, dls-..| tributors and de>Ient to give warranty.

30

Explcmahon.—In this spction, m sub-section (2) of section 19 and in section 20A, the expression "distributor" shall include a commission agent.

14A. Every vendor of an article of food shall, if so required

disclose to the food inspector the name, address and other parti culars of the person from whom he purchased the article of food."

Vendor to disclose the name, etc. of the person from whom tbe article of food was purchased.

35

Amend- ment of section 13.

8. In section 15 of the principal Act, for the words "The State Government", the words "The Central Government or the State Government'' shall be substituted.

425 G. of I. Ex—3.

9. For sub-flection (1) of section 16 of the principal Act, the following sub-sections shall be substituted, namely: <—

Arnold

BUM of

KttlOBJ*.

"(I) If any person—

5 (a) whether by himself or by any other person on hip behalf imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food—

(i) which is adulterated or misbranded or the sale of which is prohibited by the Food (Health) authority in the interest of public health;

10 (ii) other than an article of food referred to in sub- clause (i), in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder; or

(b) prevents a food inspector from taking a sample as authorised bv this Act: or

(c) prevents a food inspector from exercising any other 15 power conferred on him by or under this Act; or

20 (d) being a manufacturer of an article of food, has in his possession, or in any of the premises occupied by him, any material which may be employed for the purpose of adulteration: or

(e) uses any report or certificate of a test or analysis made by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory or by a public analyst or any extract thereof for the purpose of advertising any article of food; or

25 (f) whether by himself or by any other person on hi! behulf gives to the vendor a false warranty in writing lr respect of any article of food sold by him,

30 he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of section 6, be punishable with imprison- ment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to six years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees:

Provided that—

35 (i) if the offence is under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) and is with respect to an article of food which i3 adulterated under sub-clause (I) of clause (i) of section 2 or misbranded under sub-clause (k) of clause (ix) of that section; or

(11) if the offence is under sub-clause (11) of clause (a), the court may for any adequate and special reasons to be men- tioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months and of ftne of less than one thousand rupees.5

10

(1A) If any person in whose safe custody any article of food ha8 been kept under sub-section (4) of section 10, tampers or in any other manner interferes with such article, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and with finp whioVi shall nnt be less than one thousand ruDees.

15

20

(IB) If any person in whose safe custody any article of food has been kept under sub-section (4) of section 10, sells or distri- butes such article and such article is found by the magistrate before whom it is produced, to be adulterated with any poisonous or other ingredient under sub-clause {h) of clause (1) of section 2, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1A), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of six years and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees.

(1C) If any person contravenes the provisions of section 14 or section 14A, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for 1 term which may extend to six months and with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees-

25

30

(ID) If any person convicted of an offence under this Act commits a like offence afterwards, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2), the court, before which the second or subsequent conviction takes place, may order the cancellation of the licence, if any, granted to him under this Act and there- upon such licence shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in the rules made thereunder, stand cancelled.".

10. In section 19 of the principal Act, * •

— Amend- ment of be section 19.

(1) for sub-section (2), the following sub-section shall

substituted, namely: —

35

"(2) A vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or mis- branded article of food if he proves—

(a) that he purchased the article of food—

40

(1) in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof*from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer;

(ii) in any other case, from any manufacturer,

distributor or dealer,

with a written warranty in the prescribed form; and

5 (b) that the article of food while In his possession was properly stored and that he sold it In the same state as he purchased it." ;

10 (ii) in sub-section (3), for the words, brackets and figure "in sub-section (2)", the words and figures "in section 14" shall be substituted.

Amend- ment of section 20.

11. In section 20 of the principal Act, in sub-section (1), for the words "the State Government or a local authority" wherever they occur, the words "the Central Government or the State Government or a local authoritv" shall be substituted.

*5 12. After section 20 of the principal Act, the following section

shall be inserted, namely:—'

Insertion of new section 2OA-

Power of court to implcad manufac- turer, etc*

2O

5 of 1898.

25 20A. Where at any time during the trial oi any offence under this Act alleged to have been committed by any person, not being the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food, the court is satisfied, on the evidence adduced before it, that such manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with that offence, then, the court may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (I) of section 351 of the Code of Cri- minal Procedure, 1898, or in section 20 proceed against him as though a prosecution had been instituted against him under section 20.".

13. In section 23 of the principal Act,—

Amend- ment of flection 29.

:>° (i) in clause (a) of sub-section (1), for the words "and the fees payable therefor", the words ",the fees payable therefor, the deposit of any sum as security for the performance of the conditions of the licence and the circumstances under which such licence or security may be cancelled or forfeited" shall be subs- tituted;

(ii) for sub-section (2), the following sub-section shall bi

35 substituted, namely: —

" (2) Every rule made by the Central Government under this Act shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before each House of Parliament while it is in session for a total period of thirty days*which may be comprised in one session or in two • * * * euccesslve sessions, and if, ⁴⁰

5

before the expiry of the session in which it is so laid or the session immediately following, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annul- ment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.".

14. In sub-section (2) of section 24 of the princpial Act,—

Amend- ment of section 24, 10

(i) in clause (a), the words "and jurisdiction of food in-

spectors and public analysts" shall be omitted;

15

* * * (ii) in clause (b), * * * for the words "and the fe'es payable therefor", the words "the fees payable therefor, the deposit of any sum as security for the performance of the conditions of the licences and the circums- tances under which such licences or security may be cancelled or forfeited" shall be substituted. — ^ —^

S. L. SHAKDHER,

Secretary.

PRINTED IN INDIA BY THE GENERAL MANAOER, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PHESfl,

MTW DELHI AND PUBLISHED BY THE MANAGER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI, 1 9 64