Subject NOT available

click here for IIIF manifest

REGISTERED No. D-(D)--72

The Gazette of India

EXTRAORDINARY

PART II—Section 2

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. I] NEW DELHI, MONDAY, JANUARY 5, I976/PAUSA 15, 1897

Separate paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation.

RAJYA SABHA

The following report of the Joint Committee of the Houses of Parliament on the Bill further to amend the Prevention of Food Adulte- ration Act, 1954, was presented to the Rajya Sabha on the 5th January, 1970.

COMPOSITION OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1974

Shri Triloki Singh—Chairman

MEMBERS

Rajya Sabha

2. Shri Kamalnath Jha

3. Shri R. D. Jagdap Avergaonkar

4. Shrimati Rathnabai Sreenivasa Rao 5. Shri Tirath Ram Amla

6. Shri Bhairab Chandra Mahanti

7. Shrimati Kumudben Manishanker Joshi 8. Shri Piare Lall Kureel urf Piare Lall Talib

9. Shri Krishan Kant

10. Shri Khurshed Alam Khan

11. Shri Lalbuaia

12. Shri Krishna Bahadur Chettri

13. Shri M. Kadershah

( I )

14. Shri Sanat Kumar Raha

15. Shri Bhaironi Singh Shekhawat

16. Dr. K. Nagappa Alva

17. Shri Rabi Ray

18. Shri S. A. Kha>a Mohideen

19. Shri Showaless K. Shilla

20. Shri P. K. Kunjachen.

IWc Sabha

21. Shri Achal Singh

22. Shri Tarodekar Venkatrao Babarao

23. Shri Bhagirath Bhanwar

24. Shri Biren Engti

25. Shri Brijraj Singh

26. Shri V. Shanker Giri

27. Shrimati Marjorie Godfrey

28. Shri Annasaheb Gotkhinde

29. Shri Madhuryya Haldar

30. Shri M. M. Joseph

31. Kvimari Kamla Kumari

32. Shri Tulsiram Dashrath Kamble

33. Shri M. Kathamuthu

34. Shri A. K. Kisku

35. Shri A. K. Kotrashetti

36. Shrimati T. Lakshmikanthamma

37. Shri Lalji Bhai

38. Shri Kumar Majhi

39. Shri Bhagatram Rajaram Manhar

40. Shri Murasoli Maran

41. Shri Prasannbhai Mehta

42. Shri Mohammad Yusuf

43. Shri Mohan Swarup

44. Shri Muhammed Sheriff

45. Shri Balakrishna Venkanna Naik

46. Shri G. L. Nanda

47. Shri Tarkeshwar Pandey

48. Shri Prabodh Chandra

49. Shri Ram Surat Prasad

50. Shrimati Maya Ray

51. Shri M. Ram Gopal Reddy

52. Shri Ajit Kumar Saha

53. Shri Sangliana

54. Shri Chandra Shekhar Singh

55. Shri Shankar Dayal Singh

56. Shri K. Subravelu

57. Shri R. V, Swaminathan

58. Shri Chandra Bhal Mani Tiwari

59. Shri P. Venkatasubbaiah

GO. Dr. Karan Singh

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MINISTRIES

Ministry of Health and Family Planning

Shri Kartar Singh, Additional Secretary.

Dr. J. B. Srivastava, Director General, Health Services.

Shri Shravan Kumar, Joint Secretary.

Shri A. P. Atri, Deputy Secretary.

Shri Ramesh Bahadur, Under Secretary. Shri D. S Chadha, Assistant Director General, Health S"rvic*s.

Ministry of Law and Justice

Shri S. Harihara Iyer, Joint Secretary and Legislative Coum"l.

Stari S. Ramiah, Additional Legislative Counsel.

SECRETARIAT

Shri S. P. Ganguly, Additional Secretary. Shri M. K. Jain, Chief Legislative Committee Officer. Shri R. K. Mazumder, Senior Legislative Committee Officer.

REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE

1. the Chairman of the¹ Joint Committee to which the Bill* further to amend the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was referred, having been authorised to submit the report on its behalf, present this Report of the Joint Committee, with the Bill, as amended by the Com- mittee, annexed thereto.

2. The Bill was introduced on the Rajya Sabha on the 12th August, 1974.

3. The motion for reference of the Bill to a Joint Committee' of the Houses was moved by Dr. Karan Singh, Minister of Health and Family Planning, on the 2nd September, 1974 and was adopted by the Rajya Sabha on the same day.

4. The Lok Sabha concurred in the motion on the 6th September, 1974. The Message from the Lok Sabha was reported to the Rajya Sabha on the 7th September, 1974.

5. The Report of the Joint Committee was to be presented to the House by the first day of the Ninetieth Session of the Rajya Sabha. The Committee was, however, granted extension of time first up to the last day of the first week of the Ninety-first Session; then up to the first day of the Ninety-second Session; again up to the first day of the Ninety-third Session and last up to the first day of the Ninety-fourth Session of the Rajya Sabha.

6. The Committee held 33 sittings in all.

7. At its first sitting held on the 11th September, 1974, the Committee decided that a Press Communique be issued inviting opinions from various individuals, associations, organisations interested in the subject matter of the 3ill and advising them to send the same to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat by the 15th October, 1974. The Committee also decided to invite witnesses for the purpose of tendering oral evidence on the Bill and authorised the Chairman to decide, after examining all the Memo- randa, asi to who should be invited for the purpose. The Chairman also requested Members to suggest names of individuals/associations whom they would like to be considered for being invited to tender oral evidence before the Committee.

8. In order to make an on-the-spot study of the working of the laboratories and to get apprised of the difficulties being experienced by

*Publi"he

dated tb" 12th August, 1974.

SEC 2] T i lt GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTkAOktHNARV k

various manufacturers and dealers, the Committee visited the' following institutions : —

(i) Municipal Corporation Laboratory, Delhi. 7-12-1974

(ii) Delhi Milk Scheme Central Dairy, Delhi. 7-12-1974

(iii) Dairy run by Shri Prem Kumar Goel at Pahowa,

District Kurukshetra (Haryana). 14-12-1974

(iv) National Food Laboratory, Calcutta. 16-1-1975

(v) Central Food Technological Research Institute,

Mysore.

3-2-1975

The Committee also visited some! manufacturing units, trade Centres and hotels in Delhi and surrounding areas for the purpose.

9. The Committee received 249 Memoranda containing vieWs, com- ments, suggestions, etc. on the subject-matter of the Bill from various individuals, associations and organisations.

10. The Committee heard the oral evidence tendered by 95 witnesses.

11. The Committee decided that the verbatim record of evidence ten- dered before it should be laid on the Table of the House.

12. The Committee considered and adopted the Draft Report at its sitting held on Friday, the 26th September, 1975.

13. Before dealing with the various changes made by the Committee in the Bill, the Committee would like to stress that the evdl of food adul- teration existing in the country cannot be eradicated by legislation alone and much is required! to be done for the effective implementation of the various provisions contained in the Act. With) that end in view, the Committee has made certain suggestions in the Annexture to the Report. The Committee hopes that the Government will consider these sugges- tions and implement thetm as early as possible,

14. The principal changes effected by the Committee in the Bill and the reasons therefor are set out in, the succeeding paragraphs.

Clause Z

The following changes have been made in the clause: —

(i) Attention of the Committee was drawn to the fact that there were traders and even entrepreneurs who produce or manufacture adulterants for sale, i.e., materials which could be readily used for purposes of adulteration. The Committee is of the opinion that the manufacture, sale or distribution of such adulterants should also be made punishable under the Act and has suggested suitable proyisions in the Bill: The Committee has therefore included a definition of the term "adulterant" in thei clause.

(ii) It was represented that primary food which became sub- standard on account of natural causes b ut was not injurious to health, should not be treated as adulterated or sub-standard for the pur- poses of this Act. It was also represented that a distinction should be made between an adulterated article and a sub-standard article. It was further contended that a sub-standard food ariele which was not injurious to health should be treated differently from a sub- s t a n d a rd article which was injurious to health and therefore lighter punishment should be prescribed, for the former category of articles, i.e., a sub-standard article not injurious to health.

The Committee has accordingly amended the proposed sub-clause (1) of clause (ia) and divided the sub-standard articles of food into two categories, namely those which are injurious' to health and those which are 'non-injurious' to health. However, the primary food t h at becomes sub-standard due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency and which is not injurious to health has been exempted from the definition of "adulterated".

(in) In order to prevent any possible misuse of office, t he Com- mittee!¹ has added a proviso to clause (iv) of section 2 of the principal Act to clarify that a person who has a financial interest in the m a n u- facture, import or sale of any article of food should not be appointed as a Director of t he Central Food Laboratory.

(iv) The Committee is of the opinion that for declaring any article as food for t he purpose of the principal Act, t he -expressions already used in the definition of "adulterated" should be used. The Committee has accordingly amended the definition of 'food' as con- tained hi the Bill.

(v) It hits been clarified in the definition of "Local (Health) Au4bority" that an officer appointed by the Central Government or t he State Government concerned for a local area shall be the Local (Health) Authority for that area.

(vi) The principal Act also covers within its ambit t he manu- facture of any article of food. But the expression "manufacture" has not been defined in t he Act. The Committee has included a definition of the expression "manufacture".

(vii) The Committele has modified the definition of "primary food" so as to include therein t he produce of horticulture also and has omitted the .words illustrative of the expression 'natural form'. The Committee h as also omitted the definition of "processed food" ae it is felt that the definitions of 'food' and "manufacture" included in the Bill are comprehensive enough to include ' processed food'.

Clause, 3

Since provision has been made for the establishment of more than one Centre! Food Laboratory, the Committete i" of the opinion that the Directors of all fiuch laboratories as s nd w h en established should be members of the Central Committee for Food Standards. F u r t h er the

Committee is of the opinion that the representation of the consumers' interests in the Central Committee for Food Standards should b# increased from two to five and one of them should be from the hotel industry. The Committee has amended the clause accordingly.

Clause 5

The Committee is of the opinion that for a vast country like India the existence of one Central Food Laboratory is not adequate and for the effective implementation of the provisions of the Act, there should be more Central Food Laboratories in the different regions of the country.

The Committee is also of tha opinion that the Central Committee for Food Standards should continue to bel consulted by the Central Govern- ment in the matter of prescribing rules relating to the working of the Central Food Laboratory as provided in the principal Act.

The Clause has been amended suitably for the purpose.

Clause 6

The Committee is of the view that the Food (Health) Authority should continue to exercise the power of prohibiting the sale of any article of food in the interest of public health as provided in the principal Act and for this purpose he need not obtain the prior approval of the Central Committee for Food Standards. The Committee has, therefore, deleted sub-clause (a) of this clause.

The Committee is of the view that the manufacture for sale, storage, sale¹ or distribution of adulterants should also be prohibited and has therefore included adulterants in section 7 of the principal Act.

Clau&e 8

A number of witnesses represented before the Committee that generally a food inspector harassed the vendor in the matter of taking Samples and the powers given to him under the Act were being misused to his advantage. Taking this aspect into account and the other sugges- tions made before it, the Committee is of the opinion that the powers given to a food inspector by the Act should be curtailed so as to minimise the chances of corruption existing in this regard. The Committee has therefore* made the following amendments in the Bill.

(i) It has been clarified that a food inspector shall not have power to take samples from a person who purchases or receives any article of food for his own consumption and such category of persona has been excluded from the term 'consignee' occurring in section 10(1) (a)(iii) of the principal Act.

(ii) A food inspector shall not take samples of any primary food if the same is not~intended for sale as such food.

(iii) A clarincatory amendment has been made to the effect that whenever any article of food which appears to be adulterated or misbranded is seized or kept in the safe custody of the vendor the sample of such article shall be submitted to a public analyst for analysis.

(iv) Xhe books of accounts or other documents shall be seized by a food inspector only after taking the previous approval of the authority to which he is officially subordinate and he shall return the same within a pdriod of thirty days from the date of seizure. It has however been clarified that in case the person from whom the books or other documents have been seized refuses to certify the copies thereof or extracts therefrom and a prosecution has been instituted against him, the food inspector shall return such documents only after taking copies or extracts duly certified by the Court.

(2) The Committee is of the view that there is no necessity for the words "which is unfit for human consumption" appearing in the proposed new clause (c) of sub-seotion (1) of section 10 of the principal Act.

(3) The Committee has authorised a food inspector to take samples of adulterants also in a place where such adulterants are manufactured or kept.

(4) The Committee is of the opinion that the burden of proving that the adulterant seized is not meant for purposes of adulteration should be on the person from whose possession such adulterant was seized and has accqrdingly amended the new sub-section (7B) to section 10 of the prin- cipal Act.

(5) The Committee has also provided a minimum punishment of fine of rupees five hundred which may be extended to a maximum fine of rupees one thousand if the food inspector is found guilty of exercising the powers under the Act vexatiously and without any reasonable grounds .of suspicion.

The other amendments made in the clause are of drafting and conse- quential nature.

Clause 9

The question of taking samples and thelir utilisation was very care- fully considered by the Committee. The Committee is of the opinion that the sample taken from the vendor should continue to be divided into thrde parts, instead of four, as proposed in the clause. The Com- mittee is also of the opinion that none of the parts of the samples taken . should be delivered either to the vendor or to the person whose parti- culars have been disclosed under section 14A of the principal Act It has, however, been made obligatory on the part! of the food inspector to give notice in writing to the person whose particulars, etc, have been disclosed by the vendor then and there of his intention to have the sample analysed, besides the vendor.

It has been provided that the food inspector shall send one of the parts of the sample to the public analyst for analysis under intimation to the Local (Health) Authority and the remaining two parts to the Local (Health) Authority.

It has also bee,n provided that the food inspector shall gdt the signa- ture or thumb-Impression of the person from whom he has taken a sam- ple and in case such person refuses to sign or put his thumb-impression, the food inspector shall call upon one or more witnesses and take his or their signatures or thumb-impressions.

Sfefc, 1) Tilfi dAZkni, ciif INDIA EXTRAORDINARY 9

-the Committee has suggested) that a sample of any article of food or adulterant seized under suD-section (1) or sub-section* (2) of section 10 ox the, Act should De sent to the puolic analyst by the immediately; succeeding worKing day. The Committee has also speciiied a time limit 01 seven ciays alter the receipt of the report of the public analyst within which the articles of lood, or adulterants seized under sub-section (4) of section 10 of the Act shall be produced before a Magistrate.

Subrsection (5) of section 11 of the principal Act provides for the forieiture of the seized article, of food which is, found to be adulterated to a local authority only. The clause had provided for the forfeiture of such article or any adulterant seizedj to the State Governmetat instead 01 to the local authority. The Committee has stipulated that such for- feiture may be made to the Central Government, State Government or local authority, as the case mayj be.

Certain drafting and consequential amendments have also been made

to include¹ adulterants.

Clause 10

The Committee is of the opinion that the existing provision regarding

prosecution of offences- undefr the Act isi very cumbersome. Though a large number of prosecutions had been instituted many of them had either not ended in convictions or had to be withdrawn, mostly on the ground that the samples taken werel not proved to be adulterated or misbranded, and' in the process not only a lot of valuable time of the Courts must had been wasted but the vendors also were subjected to avoidable harassment The/ Committee hasi therefore changed the whole scheme of prosecution with a view to punish only those whose samples have been found to be adulterated by the report of the public analyst, thus mini- mising the chances of harassment of vendors and reducing the* number of prosecutions.

The Committee has provided that the public analyst will deliver the report to the Local (Health) Authority, instead of to the food inspector as provided in the principal A ct The Committee has recommended that on receipt of the report from the public analyst to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against) the person from whom, the sample of the! article of food was taken and the manufacturer, if any, whose name, address and other particulars! have been disclosed by the vendor, forward a copy of the report of the analysis to the vendor and the manu- facturer, if any, informing them that they may, if it is so desired, make an application to the Court, within a period of ten daya from the data of receipt of the copy of such report ,to get another sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. When such an application is made to the Court, the Local (Health) Authority, on a requisition from the court, shall forward the part of the sample or samples in his possession to the, Court within a period- of five days from the date of receipt of such requisition. It has been also provided that in such a case the Court shall not continue with the proceeding pending before it in relation to the prosecution until it receives' the report of the result of the analysis from the Director of Central Food Laboratory,

The Commit Lee has also provided that if the Local (Health) Autho- rity is ot the opinion that the report delivered by the public analyst is erroneous, the said Authomy shall lorwaid one ol me parts o± the sample kept by it in respect) ol that article ol lood to any other public analyst lor analysis and it the report ol the result ol the analysis of that sample by that other public analyst is to the erlect tnat the article of food is adulterated, the Authority shall institute a prosecution against the person or persons involved.

The principal Act provides that any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence ol the tacts stated therein. The Com- mittee has excluded from the purview ot this general provision such of the certificates with respect to the analysisi of the samples of articles of food or adulterants, which when consumed by any person are likely to cause death or grievousi hurt to such person. The proviso to sub-section (5) of section 13 of the Act has been suitably amended for the purpose.

Clause 11

Section 14 of the principal Act imposes an obligation on every manu- facturer, distributor or dealer to give a warranty in writing in respect of the nature and quality of every article of food sold by him to a vendor. During the course of the evidence tendered before the Committee, the representatives of the retailers represented that that requirenient of the law was not being followed by the manufacturers or dealers, as a result of which the vendors had to suiter. The Committee has remedied the situation by inserting a proviso to the section to the effect that a bill, cash memorandum or invoice given by a manufacturer, distributor or dealer in respect of any article of food purchased by the vendor should be defemed to be a warranty.

Consequent on the deletion of the new section 22A as originally proposed in clause 18 of the Bill, the amendment proposed in the Expla- nation to section 14 of the principal Act by the claused is no longer neces- sary.

Clause 12

The Committee has given very careful thought on the provisions suggested in the clause relating to the, penalties to be awarded for vari- ous types of offences under the Act, The Committee is of the opinion that while oersons who indulge in deliberate acts of adulteration should be punished severely, it should, at the same time, be ensured that inno- cent people are not unnecessarily harassed. The Committee has, accord- ingly, categorised the offences under the Act and the punishments to be provided for them with reference to the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the person consuming an adulterated foor or adul- terant as follows: —

(i) Primary food which is non-injurious to health, but sub- standard due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, has been totally exempted. Such articles of food have been excluded from the definition of the term "adulterated" also [vide proviso to sub clause (b) (iii) (m) of clause 2 of the Bill]. \

(ii) If the adulterated food is primary food which is non-injurious to health, but adulterated by human agency, the pdrson committing the offence shall be liable to imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to a fine of not less than rupees five hundred.

(iii) If the adulterated food is not primary food, and is non- injurious to health, the person committing the offence shall be liable to imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three ydars and shall also be liable to a fine of not less than rupees one thousand.

(iv) If the adulterated food is injurious to health but which does nut cause grievous hurt or death, the punishment shall vary from one year in SFX years with a minimum fine of rupees two thousand.

(v) If the adulterated food is injurious to health and is likely to cause death or grievous hurt, the punishment shall vary from three years to life imprisonment with a minimum fine of rupees five thousand.

The Committee has also brought within the ambit of the clause the import, manufacture, sale, storage, distribution of adulterants and has prescribed similar penalties for such offences.

The Committee has amended the clause accordingly.

Clause 13 (New Clause)

The Committee is of the opinion that cases involving food adulteration should be tried and the offenders punished as cmickly as possible. To achieve this object, the Committee has added this New clause which provides for summary trial in cases which do not involve heavy punish- ment -i f offences which come under¹ sub-section (1) of section 16 of the Act. It has, however, been ensured that such offences are tried by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or by a Metropolitan Magistrate. It has also been provided that if the Magistrate, in the course of a summary trial is of the opinion! that it is undesirable to try the case summarilv or that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed he shall record an order to that effect and thereafter proceed to hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

lause 15 (Original Clause 14)

The Committee is of the opinion that for instituting a prosecution for an offence mentioned in section 14 (i.e. non-issuance of a writte*n war- ranty) or section 14A (i.e. non-disclosure of the source of purchase) the prior sanction of the Central or thp State Government as required under section 20 of the Act should not be necessary. These offences have, therefore, betfm excluded from the purview of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the ACT-

The Committee is also of the opinion that an offence punishable under section 14 or section 14A need not be cognizable and non-bailable and has accordingly omitteti the reference to sub-section (IC) of section 16 from the proposed sub-section (3) of section 20.

Clause 19 (Original Clause 18)

The Bill had proposed to give power to the Central Government to exempt any manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in, any article of food from the operation of the provisions, of section 14 of the Act regarding the issue of warranty. Since section 14 is a very salutary provision, the Committee is of the view that no provision for giving such exemption need be included in the Act and that all the agenciete mentioned above, irrespective of its nature, should comply with the obligatory provision of issuing warranty contained in that section. The proposeki new section 22A as provided in the Bill has accordingly been omitted.

The Committee has, however, added a new provision enabling the Central Government to give directions to the State Governments regard- ing thei carrying into execution in the State concerned of all or any of the provisions of the Act.

Clause 20 (Original Clause 19)

The Central Government has been also given power to define by rules the laboratories where samples of articled of food or adulterants may be analysed by public analysts under the Act.

The clause has accordingly been amended.

Clause 21 (Original Clause 20)

The clause has been amended to give power to the State Government to make rules defining the powers and duties of the Local (Health) Authority also appointed by them.

The other changes made in the Bill are of a consequential or drafting nature,

15. The Committee recommends that the Bill, as amended, be passed.

NEW DELHI;

TRTLOKI SWGH,

September 26, 1975. Chairman of the Joint Committee,

ANNEXURE

(Vide para 13 of the Report)

Suggestions for the Effective Implementation of the Act

The Committee is of the view that the main responsibility for implementing the Act lied with the Central Government. It was brought before it in a convincing manner that the funds made available for this purpose—whether from the Centre or the States—were hopelessly inade- quate. The* first three Five Year Plans did nob make a mention of prevention of food adulteration. The Fourth Plan did make some provision for it but it more or less remained a pious wish. The Committee feels that prevention of disease is a meiasure of much greater importance than its cure and that more and more attention should be given to the prevention of food adulteration, for which the first necessity is, that adequate funds should be provided for it.

The Committee has recommended the setting up of more than one Central Food Laboratory. For a big country like ours, one such labo- ratory is not) enough. It is necessary that without undue delay, at least four such laboratories be set up in four different zones in the country.

Another matter of no less importance was brought to the notice of the Committee, namely, that the! laboratories of the Public analysts at the State level did not have necessary and up-to-date equipment for carrying on analysis. There seems no reason whv there should be diffence in analysis in two laboratories of the same material, if it has been carried out in a scientific manner with uniform methodology, The main reason advanced was that the State laboratories were ill-equipped. The Committee, therefore, felt its duty to draw the attention of the Government that not only the Central Food Laboratory but also the laboratories at the State level should be equipped with the latest instru- ments and in big States like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, there should be more than one such labora- tory with the latest equipment.

The Committde also feels that for effective implementation of the Act, a separate Food Department under the control of the Director of Health be established in all the States and that generally speaking except in larger cities the implementation of the Act should not be entrusted to the local bodies. It was abundantly made clear to the Committee, by various witnesses, both official and non-official, that much pf the malaise of non-implementation was due to the corruption at the

lower level. The plea that corruption, is rampant all round should not deter the Government from taking effective steps to root out corruption from the Food Department. The Committee feels that this could be done, if the Food Inspectors are well-paid and are persons with necessary scientific qualifications. Mostly, this work has so far been entrusted to the local sanitary inspectors. As far as the area of the food inspectors is concerned, they should not be confined to on£ particular locality and the area should be big enough consisting of 10 to 12 districts with headquarters at one place coming under the direct supervision of a Deputy Director for Food. Thef Committee feels that what was necessary is deterrent action and therefore instead of taking samples here and there, whenever the Deputy Director so decides, samples on a mass-scale should be taken from a particular locality, from all types of dealers in food without any previous inkling to them. In order to be effective, the dealers should all the time be left guessing. Tf that is done, the Committee feels that much of the corruption in the lower ranks of the Food Department would disappear.

There is another question, that of making rules. It takes fairly long time to make rules. The) C mmittee feels that for the effective imple- mentation of the Act, rules should be made as soon as possible and due care should be given to see that no loopholes are left.

It was represented before the Committed that even goods with Agmark seals were occasionally found adulterated As Agmark and ISI and such other bodies like quality control etc. work under the auspices of the various Departments- of the Government of India, carries with it an understanding that any article carrying the seal of Agmark etc. should be sufficient guarantee to the consumer that it is unadulterated and in case it is found adulterated, action should be taken against the manu- facturer by the Agmark people as well.

Section 17 of the Act, dealing with "offences by companies" was out- side the scope of the Bill. The Committee, however, feels that this provision needs- a fre^h look and that instead or m-osecutint? thp whole lot, the companies dealing in food articles should be asked to name the person who is in charge and also responsible to the company for the conduct of the business so that in case any article manufactured, stored or sold by them is found adulte/ated, only the person in charge may be prosecuted and not the whole b^flrd as is done at the moment.

Milk is an article of food in which the ihcidence of adnltetation in spite of the Act. has been thp highest Tt wa=. however, brought before the Committee 1hat there are few dairies who have +heir' own cattle. They make purchases from the milk vendors and in a majority of cases, the milk so supplied is not upto the standard, in other words, technically adulterated What these dairy owners do is that thev urocess it into milk which conforms to prescribed standards. Adulteration in milk is so rampant that if action is taken atrain'rt the suppliers of such dairies, oerhaDS no dairy would be left working in this country, even the Delhi Mttk Scheme would come to prief. The Committee, therefore, thinks that some way should be devised to ensure the continuance of tWse dairies and also in ensure the supnlv of nure milk

SEC.¹- 2J THfe GAZETTE 6* INDIA EXTRAORDINARY 15

Another aspect brought beiore the Committee was that adulteration was going on even at the level of small flour mills, i.e. Chakkies catering to the< grinding needs of small consumer. It was suggested that such stalls should be required to give a warranty in regard to the purity of stuff handed over by them to the consumer. The Committee recom- mends that the Government should examine this matter and devise ways to curb this menace.

Another difficulty was brought beiore the Committee about the use of milk and milk products by the hoteliers. It is common knowledge that the milk supplied in hotels for mixing with tea or coftee or curd supplied with raita are sometimes mixed with water in order to make good preparations out of that. If the Food Inspector happens to visit any such hotel and takes sample out of such, milk, the hotelier is pro- secuted How to get over this difficulty, which is equally faced by hotels in public sector as well as in private sector? It is for the Govern- ment to provide against it. One such way may be the issuing of direc- tions provided for under clause lfl ofj the Bill to the State Governments and Union Territories.

So far no efforts were mad© to enlist the cooperation and support of the people in fighting the menace! of food adulteration. Many witnesses brought this aspect to the notice of the Committee and it would like to suggest that close liaison be established between people's representatives, social organisations and the like and the food department. It would also be better if the media of press, radio, television be utilised and exhibitions be held to bring home to the people the dangers of food adulteration.

MINUTES OF DISSENT

I

The Central Committee for Food Standards is a very important body that has to be constituted as a part of the Prevention, ol Food Adultera- tion. Act. The iunction of the Committee is to advise the Central Gov- ernment and State Governments on matters arising out of the adminis- tration, oi toe Act and to carry out the other lunations assigned to it under the Act. Ihe essence of the Act is to safeguard Consumers' interest. The Central Committee for Food Standards consists ol re- presentatives of Central Government, State Governments, certain Central iVUnastries and certain Institutions. The number may be over forty and yet there) is no speciiic representation (1) for the Hotels and Res- taurants though the Hotel Industry is mainly a Consumer Industry; and (2) for the women as they have to play a great role for the successful implementation of the Act and to see that food served at homes of all the rich and the poor is clean and unadulterated. As it is, the Com- mittee looks liite mainly a Government functionary.

In the amendment that was accepted in the Joint Committee regard'- ing this clause, it was decided to give representation to the Hotel Indus- try and that by nomination of one person by the Government. The Gov- ernment will naturally give representation to the public sector Hotel Industry which is associated with the Tourist Development Corporation. That means the Private Hotel Industry which caters to the needs of over 90 per cent of the customers would not have any representation. Private Hotel Industry must have a representative in the Committee as Hotel Industry is mainly a consumer Industry. The Hotel owners and the Restaurant owners purchase food articles, prepare verieties of food and serve or cater to the people. By giving representation to the private sector Hotel Industry, the Government fixes a responsibility on them to serve the consumer interest to a large extent. I had emphasised this aspect during discussion and had expressed my dissent also for the de- cision taken. My suggestion is that it is absolutely necessary that there should be two representatives for the Hotel Industry, one for the Private Sector and the other for the Public Sector.

Consumer interest can be well served by involving the women in the implementation of the P.F.A. Act for both prevention and detection of food adulteration. I feel that representation to the women is very neces- sary in the Central Committee for Food Standards. I suggest that a representative of the All India Women's Organisation should be nomi- nated to the Committee.

DR. K. NAGAPPA ALVA

IV

While dealing with clause 12 in the Report, the Committee has observed "The Committee is of the opinion that while persons who in- dulge in deliberate acts of adulteration should be punished; severely, it should, at the same time, be ensured that innocent people are not un- necessarily harassed. The Committee has, accordingly, categorised the offences under the Act| and the punishment to be provided for them with reference to the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the person consuming an adulterated food or adulterant".

The object of the Committee of ensuring the protection of innocent people! from unnecessary harassment and of minimising the chances of harassment of vendors is laudable. But while categorising the offences under the Act and the punishment to be provided for them, the Com- mittee has equateid the contravention of any rule made under the Act with the offences of adulteration and misbranding.

The provisions of S. 16(1) (a) (ii) read with the proviso to that sec- tion would now make it obligatory on the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment which shall not be less than three months and with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees. An itinerant vendor who does not carry the prescribed, metallic badge on his arm or whose containers of food and the vehicle are not properly marked is now punish- able with the minimum imprisonment of 3 months and fine of Rs. 500. This punishment is too grave and disproportionate to the gravity of the offences. Many such rediculous situations can be pointed out. This provision, which runs counter the very object of the. Committee, will create panicky atmosphere among the innocent vendors, honest retail traders, and all sections of trading community. Surely this is not the intention of the Parliament.

This panicky atmosphetre can be cleared and the chances of harassment of vendors minimised with the assurance that minor offences relating to breach of conditions of licence or petty contravention of the rules will not be met with harsh consequences. Even the Law Commission of India has, in its 47th report, observed as following: "For these reasons, we do not think that the discretion of the Court to award a sentence below the minimum should be totally abolished. In fact, even some of the officers concerned with enforcement of the Acts agreed that it was impossible to conceive of every possible situation which might operate in mitigation".

This object can be achieved by adding a further proviso to the pro- posed Sec. 16(1) as follows:

"Provided further that if the offence is in relation to breach of con- ditions of licence or contravention of rules the Court may for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months or of fine o£ less than five hundred rupees or of both imprisonment for a te*rm of less than three months and fine of less than five hundred rupees".

ANNASAHEB GOTKHINDE.

V

I feel constrained to add this note of dissent to the Report of the Joint Committee on the Prevention of Aulteration of Food (Amendment) Bill, 1974.

To begin with general observation, I welcome drastic changes and improvements made in the original Bill by the Joint Committee, The new provisions made in the Bill will help curbing adulteration of food to a certain degree despite shortage, scarcity of food articles, despite poverty prevailing in the society, if ad^auate implementing machinery be there. Throughout its deliberation Joint Committee raised this issue repea+odly. but this apprehension in respect of implementation by proper machinery was not removed by adequate provision of fund for creating appropriate infrastructure in administering the Act.

It has not been clear in what regions and by when more regional central food laboratories will be established. Problems of whole-time inspectors with¹ adequate training and salary and in adequate number are left to State Governments. But States' machineries are too poor to tackle this nroblem of vast magnitude. The bicrgest State of Uttar Pra- desh has onlv 46 full-time food inspectors. Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Rajasthan, Delhi have no full-time ins- pector under State Government. Gujarat and Chandigarh hasi one each and most of the States have no full-time inspectors under local boides. The legislation does not incorporate provisions in this direction.

Instead of two provided m the original Bill there will be five repre- sentatives of consumers! interest in the Central Committee for Food Standard. Parliament should consider whether any representative of women section and workers of food manufacturing concerns, be in the Committee. I think such workers should be dnvolVed in eradicating adulteration at the source.

In Clause 9 no time limit for work of analysis of food samples by Public Analyst has been provided. But time limit is an essential factor to expedite adulteration cases when in a new clause 13 provision of summary trial has been incorporated rightly.

Indian Texieological Research Centre in its report stated that out of 409200 samples of food items 103044 were found adulterated during last thirteen years and 4400 people in West Bengal, 120006 in Bihar and Madhya Pradesh v/ere affected with paralysis due to 'Kesari Dal' an adultrant mixed with cereals. But Joint Committee could not solve this problem of 'Kesari Dal¹. There is no necessity of colouring of 'Dal' and 'Masalla' which damages our health, this should be prohibited.

Existing laboratories of the countiy are too poor to the task, not equipped with up to date instruments Number ofi such laboratories in proportion to population are few. The legislation could not provide any basis of such laboratories least necessary for the country. At present only 42 food laboratories under Stato management and 22 under Local Bodies are in working condition in India under the Act.

As regards administration of the Act in rural areas condition is rather gloomy. In West Bengal out of 93 Municipal Corporations and othe>r local bodies 46 have no Food Inspector or Sanitary Inspectors. Sanitary Inspectors are to act also as Food Inspectors. This system produce no good result. Central Rill has failed to give any concrete guidance in this direction. If Central and State Governments fail to administer the Act in a serious and co-ordinated manner, whole exercise of the Joint Committee will be futile and infructuous.

One of the many functions of the Central Unit under the Directorate General of Health Services should be to take up the task of leading a continuous campaign throughout the country against adulteration in various forms and media with peoples' participation. The legislation should enumerate such duties of the D.G.H.S.

No scheme connected with the Prevention, of Food Adulteration Act was included in the first three plans- Due to non-sanctioning of certain proposals and late sanction of others, very little of the funds could be utilised during the fourth plan. Such sad performance on the part of the Government cannot be excused. If Central Government do not take the initiative uniformly and in an integrated manner to implement the Act with adequate finance, the deterrent punishment provided in the Bill for adulterators will only breed corruption and frustration. It should be noted that prevention is better than cure. So preventive positive measures will be more economic and more effective than negative method of punishments for adulteration, A new concept of adultrants as bad as adulteration has enriched the Bill. The first time, the primary food, sub- standard food, has been denned. As regards penalty for adulteration rational and realistic approach has beeb made in the Bill. Joint Com- mittee wanted a new orientation in eradicatinc the evil of adulteration from the social life. This needs a strong and devoted cadre-based or- ganisation in the country but unfortunately the Bill has failed to provide such concrete measures.

SANAT RAHA.

VI

I am happy thai the Joint Committee has made extensive amend- ments in the Bill referred to it with a view to tightening the law of prevention of food adulteration and making it as stringent as possible. None the less it is nobody's claim that the evil of food adulteration which is rampant will be altogether eliminated by the law. One of the reasons as to why the law has failed is that the executive appeared to be more concerned with catching a small fry than a big fish. The cobwebs of law are spread only to entangle small traders and the big ones go scot free. This needs to be changed if the law is to be made more effective and purposeful. The law should ignore the! triflings. For instance, it is no use catching Panwallas and Pan-masalewallas. For, the Pan or its Masala are nob a food; they are merely a chewing material. As back as 1900, the Privy Council had held that chewing-gum is not food \Vide Bennet-us-Iyler (1900) 64 119; 25 DIGEST 7073 AND NEWTON TEA AND SPIRE CO. VS. U.S. 288F 475], The' Pan-masala is merely a chew- ing material. Again, our Supreme Court has also held in 1961 in Ram- avtar Buddhiprasad Vs. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, that the betel leaves have got no food value and are not food. This type of food should there- fore be completely removed from the purview of law. The executive machinery should not waste its efforts on these types of offences, if at all, they should concentrate on articles of mass consumption and production.

Moreover, Government should do something to preVent tampering with Agmark seal or adulteration of agmarked goods. It passes one's comprehension as to how goods properly agmarked could at all be found adulterated. It is also baffling as to why in such cases, innocent traders should be¹ harangued, hauled and harassed. This needs to be stopped. The procedure for agmarking also should be reviewed and brought on sound footing.

If these steps are taken, I am sure that real cases of adulteration will come to li^ht and innocent and petty traders will not be) subjected to wasteful litigation.

RAM SURAT PRASAD.

BILL NO. XXXIII-B OF 1974

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1974

(AS REPORTED BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE)

[Words underlined or side-lined indicate the amendments sugqested 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 Twenty-sixth Year of the Republic

of India as follows: —

1. (1) This Act may be called the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, 1975.

Short title and commen- cement.

(2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.

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

(hereinafter referred to as the principal Act),—

Amend- ment of section 2.

(a) clause (i) shall be re-numbeted as clause (ia) thereof and before that clause as so re-numbered, the following clause shall be inserted, namely: —

'(i) "adulterant" means any material which is or could be employed for the purposes of adulteration;';

(b^ in clause (ia) as so re-numbered,—

(i) in sub-clause (}), the word "disgusting," shall be omitted;

(iz) for sub-clause (j), the following sub-clause shall be sub- stituted, namely: —

"(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;";

(Hi) for sub^clause (I), the following sub-clauses shall be substituted, namely: —

"(I) 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, 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 quanti- ties not within the prescribed limits of variability but which docs not vender it injurious to health:

Provided that, where the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed stan- dards 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;";

(c) in clause (iv), the following proviso shall be inserted at the end, namely: —

"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 Director under this clause;";

(d) for clause (v), the following clause shall be substituted,

namely: —

'(v) "food" means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes—

(a) any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of, human food,

(b) any flavouring matter or condiments, and

(c) any other article which the Central Government may, having regard to its use, nature, substance or quality, declare, by notification in the¹ Official Gazette, as food for the purposes of this Act;';

Xe) for clause (ui), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:—

'(pi) "Food (Health) Authority" means the Director of Medical and Health Services or the Chief Officer in charge of Health administration in a State, by whatever designation he is known, and includes any officer empowered by the Central Government or the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Food (Health) Authority under this Act with respect to such local area as may be specified in the notification;';

(/) after clause (viii), the following clauses shall be inserted,

namely:—

'(viiia) "Local (Health) Authority", in relation to a local area, means * * * the officer appointed by the Central Government or the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to be in charge of Health administration in such area with such designation as may be specified therein;

(viiib) "manufacture" includes any process incidental or ancillary to the manufacture of an article of food;';

(g) after clause (xii), the following clause shall be inserted,

namely:—

(xiia) "primary food" means any article of food, being a produce of agriculture or horticulture in its natural form;';

* * * **

3. In section 3 of the principal Act,—

Amend- ment of section 3.

(a) in sub-section (2),—

(i) for clause (b), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:—

"(b) the Director of the Central Food Laboratory or, in a case where more than one Central Food Laboratory is established, the Directors of such Laboratories, ex o-jficio;";

(ii) for clause (g), the following clauses shall be substituted,

namely.—

"(g) one representative each, nominated by the Central

Government, to represent the agricultural, commercial and

Industrial interests;

(gg) five representatives nominated by the Central Gov-

ernment to represent the consumers' interests, one of Whom

shall be from the hotel Industry;";

(b) in sub-section (3), for the brackets and letter "(g),", the brackets and letters "(g), (gg)," shall be substituted.

4. After section 3 of the principal Act, the following section shay, be inserted, namely.—

Insertion ofReW sec^n 3A.

"3A- (1) The Central Government shall appoint a Secretary to

the Committee who shall, under the control and direction of the

Committee, exercise such powers and perform such duties as may

be prescribed or as may be delegated to him by the Committee.

Appoint- ment of Secre- tary and other staff.

(2) The Central Government shall provide the Committee with

such clerical and other staff as that Government considers neces-

sary-" •

5. In section 4 of the principal Act,—

Amend- ment of section 4.

(a) for sub-section (I), the following sub-section shall be sub- stituted, namely:—

"(2) The Central Government shall, by notification in the

Official Gazette, establish one or more Central Food Laboratory

or Laboratories to carry out the functions entrusted to the Cen-

tral Food Laboratory by this Act or any rules made under this

Act:

Provided that the Central Government may, by notification

in the Official Gazette, also specify any laboratory or institute as

a Central Food Laboratory for the purposes of this Act.";

(b) in sub-section (2), * * * for clause (a), the follow- ing clause shall be substituted, namely:—

"(a) the functions of a Central Food Laboratory and the local area or areas within which such functions may be carried out;".

6. In section 7 of the principal Act,—

* * * •

Amend- ment of flection 7, (a) in clause (iu), the word "or" shall be omitted;

(b) in clause (v), the word "or" shall be inserted at the end;

(c) after clause (v) as so amended, the following clause shall be inserted, namely:—

"(vi) any adulterant.";

(d) the following Explanation shall be inserted at the end,

namely—

"Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to store any adulterated food or misbranded food or any article of food referred to in clause (Hi) or clause (iv) or clause (v) if he stores such food for the manufacture

7. In section 8 of the principal Act, after the proviso, the following

proviso shall be inserted, namely: —

Amend- ment Of section 8.

"Provided further that different public analysts may be appointed

for different articles of food.".

8. In section 10 of the principal Act,—

Amend- ment of section 10.

(a) in sub-section (1),—

(i) for clause (c), the following clause shall be substituted,

namely: —

"(c) with the previous approval of the Local (Health) Authority having jurisdiction in the local area concerned, or with the previous approval of the Food (Health) Authority, to prohibit the sale of any article of food * * * in the interest of public health.";

(w) the following Explanation shall be inserted at the end,

namely: —

'Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-clause (iii) of clause (a), "consignee" does not include a person who pur- chases or receives any article of food for his own consump- tion;';

(b) for sub-section (2), the following sub-section shall be sub-

stituted, namely: —

"(2) Any food inspector may enter and inspect any place where any article of food is manufactured, or stored for sale, or stored for the manufacture of any other article of food for sale, or exposed or exhibited for sale or* where any] adulterant is I manufactured or kept, and take samples of such article of food I I or adulterant for analysis:

Provided that no sample of any article of food, beinfi primary food, shall be taken under this sub-section if it is not intended for sale as such food.";

(c) in sub-section (4), in the! opening paragraph, the following

shall be inserted at the end, namely: —

"and he shall, in either case, take a sample of such article

and submit the same for analysis to a public analyst;"

(d) aftei sub section U), the following sub-section shall b© in-

serted7namely: —

"(4A) Where any article of food seized under aub-section (4) is of a perishable nature and the Local (Health) Authority Is satisfied that such article of food is so deteriorated that it is unfit for human consumption, the said Authority may, after giving notice in writing to the vendor, cause the same to be destroyed.";

(e) in sub-section (5),--

(i) for the first proviso, the following proviso shall be sub- stituted, namely: —

"Provided that the power to break open the package or door shall be exercised only after the owner or any other person in charge of the¹ package or, as the case may be. in occupation ot the premises, if he is present therein, refuses to open the package or door on being called upon, to do so, and in either case aftei recording the reasons for doing so:";

5 of 1898.

2 of 1974.

(h) in sub-section (8), for the words and figures "under section

5 of 1898.

2 of 1974.

57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898", the woids and figures "under section 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973'' shall be substituted;

(i) in sub-section (9),—

(A) in clause (a), after the wordsi "article of food", the

words "or adulterant" shall be inserted;

(B) for the words "with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees", the words "with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees but which may extend to one thousand rupees" shall be substituted.

9. In section 11 of the principal Act,—

(d) for sub-sections (1) and (2), the following sub-sections shall

Amend- ment of section 11.

be substituted, namely: —

"(I) When a food inspector takes a sample of food for ana-

lysis, he shall—

(a) give notice in writing then and there of his inten- tion to have it so analysed) to the person from whom he¹ has tdken the sample and to the person, if any, whose name, dddress and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14A;

(b) except in special cases provided by rules under this Act, divide the sample then and there into three parts and mark and seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits and take the signature or thumb irripression of the person from whom the sample has been taken in such place and in such manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that where such person refuses to sign or put his thumb impression the food inspector shall call upon one or more witnesses and take his or their signatures or thumb impressions, as the case may be, in lieu of the signature or thumb impression of such person;

(c) (i) send one of the parts fon analysis to the public analyst under intimation to the Local (Health) Authority; and

(ii) send the remaining two parts to the Local (Health) Authority for the purposes of sub-section (2) of this section arid sub-sections (2A) and (2E) of section 13.

(2) Where the part of the sample sent to the public analyst

under sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (I) is lost or damaged, the Local (Health) Authority shall, on a requisition made to it by the public analyst or the food inspector despatch one of the parts of the sample sent to it under sub-clause (ii) of the said clause (c) to the public analyst for analysis."; (b) in sub-section (3),—

{i) after the words "article' of food", the words "or adulte-l rant" shall be inserted;

(iiy for the words "the food inspector shall send a sample

of it", the wor^s ''the food inspector shall, by the immediately

succeeding working day, send a sample of the' article of food or

adulteranTor both, as the case may bo," shall be substituted;

(c) in sub-section (4),—

(i) for the opening paragraph, the following paragraph shall be substituted, namely: —

"(4) An article of food seized undeV sub-section (4) of section 10, unless destroyed under sub-section (4A) of that section, and any adulterant seized under sub-section (6) of that section shallbeproduced before a magistrate¹ as soon as possible and in any case not later than seven days after

the receipt of the report of the public analyst;";

(ii) the first proviso shall be omitted and in the? second pro-

viso the word ''further" shall be omitted;

(d) for sub-section (5), the following sub-section shall be sub- stituted, namely: —

"(5) If it appears to the magistrate on taking such evidence as he may deem necessary—

(a) that the article of food produced before him under sub-section (4) is adulterated or misbranded, he may order it—

(i) to be forfeited to the Central Government, the

State Government or the local authority, As the case

may be; or

(w) to be destroyed at the cost of the owner or the person from whom it was seized so as to prevent its being used as human food; or

(in) to be so disposed of as to prevent its being again exposed for sale* or used for food under its deceptive name; or

(iv) to be returned to the owner, on his executing a bond with or without sureties, for being sold under its appropriate name or, where the magistrate is satisfied that the article of food is capable of being made to con- form to prescribed standards for human consumption after reprocessing, for being sold after reprocessing under the supervision of such officer as may be specified in the order;

following shall be substituted, namely: —

"If it appears to the- magistrate that any such—

(a) article of food is not adulterated; or

(fa) adulterant which is purported to be an adulterant is not an adulterant,

the person from whose possession the¹ article of food or adulte- rant wasl taken".

10. In section 13 of the principal Act,—

(a) for sub-sections (1) and (2), the following sub-sections shall Amend- ment of section 13.

be substituted, namely; —

" (1) The public analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food! submitted to him for ana- lysis.

(2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the insti- tution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have beer disclosed under section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an ap- plication to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the arti- cle of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.

(2A) When an application is made to the court under sub- sebtion (2), the court shall require the Local (Health) Authority to forward the part or parts of the sample kept by thp said Autho- rity and upon such requisition being made, the said Authority shall forward the part or parts of the sample to the court within a period of five days from the date of receipt of such requisition.

destroy that part after the certificate from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory has been received by the court:

Provided that where the part of the sample sent by the court to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is lost or damag- ed, the court shall require thd Local (Health) Authority to for- ward the part of the sample, if any, retained by it to the court and on receipt thereof, the court shall proceed in the manner provided in sub-section (2B).

{2D) Until the receipt of the certificate of the result of the analysis from the Director of Central Food Laboratory, the court shall not continue with the proceedings pending before it in re- lation to the prosecution.

(2E) If, after considering the report, if any, of the food inspector or otherwise, the Local (Health) Authority is of the opinion that the report delivered by the public analyst under sub-section (1) is erroneous, the said Authority shall forward one of the parts of the sample kept by it to any other public analyst for analysis and if the report of the result of the analysis of that part of the sample by that other public analyst is to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (2D) shall, so far as- may be, apply.";

(b) in sub-sections (-3) and (4) for the words, brackets and figure "under sub-section (2)", the words, brackets, figure and letter "under sub section (2B):' shall be substituted;

(c) in sub-section (5), for the proviso, the? following proviso shall be substituted: —

"Provided that any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory [not being a certificate with respect to thej analysis of the part of the sample of any article of food referred to in the proviso to sub-section (lA) of section 16J shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.";

(d) the! following Explanation shall be inserted at the end, namely: —

'Explanation.—In this section, and in clause (f) of sub-sec- tion (I) of section; 10, "Director of the Central Food Laboratory" shall include the officer for the time being in charge of any Food Laboratory (by whatever designation he is known) recognised by the Central Government for the purposes of this section.',

11. In section 14 of the/ principal Act,—

Amend- ment of section 14, (a) for the words "manufacturer, distributor or dealer of", the words "manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in," shall be sub- stituted;

(b) before the Explanation, the following proviso shall be insert- ed, namely: —

"Provided that a bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food givejn by a manufacturer or dis- tributor of, or dealer in, such] article to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer, dis- tributor or dealer* under this section.".

12. In section 16 of the principal Act,—

(a) for sub-section (1), the following sub-section shall be substi-i Amend- ment of section 16

tuted, namely: —

(I) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1A), if any

;

person—

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

(i) which is adulterated within the' meaning of sub- clause (m) of clause (,ia) oi' section 2 or misbranded within the meaning of clause (ix) of that section or the sale of which is prohibited under any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder or by an order of thej j Food (Health) Authority;

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

(b) whether by himself or by any other person on higj behalf, imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores^ sells or distributes any adulterant which ia not injurious tq i health; or

(c) prevents a food inspector from taking a sample a$ authorised by this Act; or

(d) prevents a food inspector from exercising any otheto powen conferred on him by or under this Act; or :

(e) being a manufacturer of an article of food, has in his possession, or in any of the premises occupied by him, any adulterant which is not injurious to health; or >

(/> 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

(g) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives to the vendor a false warranty in writing in respect of any article of food sold by him,

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 three years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees:

Provided that—

(i) if the offence is under sub^clause (i) of clause (a) and is with respect to an article of food, being primary food, which is adulterated due to human agency or is with respect to an article of food which is misbranded within the meaning of sub-clause (k) of clause (ix) of section 2; or

(ii) if the offence' is under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), the court may, Tor any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprison- ment Tor a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years, and with! fine which shall not be less than five: hundred rupees.";

(b) sub-section (1A) shall be re-numbered as sub-section (1AA) and before that sub-section as so re-numbered, the follow- ing sub-section shall be inserted, namely: —

"(1A) If any person whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes,—

(i) any article of food which is adulterated within the meaning of any of the sub-clauses (e) to¹ (I) (both inclusive) of clause (ia) of section 2; or

(ii) any adulterant which is injurious to health,

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

45 of 1860,

Provided that if .such article of food or adulterant, when consumed by any person is likely to cause his death or is likely to cause such harm on his body as would amount to grievous hurt within the meam'ner of section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may Attend to term of life and with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees.";

(c) for sub-section (IB), the following sub-section shall be sub- stituted, namely: —

45 of I860,

"(IB) If any person in whose safe custody any article of food has been kept under sub-section (4) of section 10, sells or distributes such article which is found by the magistrate before whom it is produced to be adulterated within the me'aninR of sub-clause (h) of clause (ia) of section 2 and which, when con- sumed by any person, islikolv to cause his death' or is likely to cause such harm on his bodv as would' amount to grievous hurt within the mepmmrf of section 3?0 of the Indian Penal Code, then, notwithstanding anvthinp contained in sub-section (1AA), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three vears but which may extend! to term of life and with fine which shall not be' less than five thousand rupees,",

IB. After section W of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely: —

Insertlo of new section 16A

Sof 1974.

Power of court to try cases sum- marily.

"16A. Notwithstanding anything contained] in the Code of Crimi- nal Procedure, 19V3, all offences undetr sub-section (1) of section 16 shall be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Govern- ment or by a Metropotlian Magistrate and thet provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trial:

Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year:

Provided further that when at the commencement df, or in the course of, a summary trial under this section, it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable toi try the case sum- marily, the Magistrate shall after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall anv witness who may¹ have been examined and proceed to hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by the said Code.".

14. In section 18 of the principal Act, the following proviso shall be

inserted at the end, namely: —

Amend- ment of section 18.

"Provided that where the court is satisfied that the article of food is capable of being made to conform to prescribed standards for human consumption after reprocessing, the court may order the article of food to be returned to the owner, on his executing a bond with or without sureties, for being sold, sublet to the other pro- visions of this Act, after reprocessing under the supervision of such officer as may be specified herein.".

15- In section 20 of the principal Act,—

Amend- ment of section 29,

(a) in sub-section (1),—

(i) for the words "No prosecution for an offence under this Act", the words., figures and letter "No prosecution for an offence under this Act, not being an offence under section! 14 or section 14A," shall be substituted;

(ii) the Words "or a local authority", at both the places where thev occur, shall be omitted;

(b) for sub section (2), the following sub-sections shall be substituted, namely —

"(2) No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of 1he first class shall try any offence under this Act.

2 of 1974.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, an offence punishable under sub-section (UA)> of section 16 * * * shall be cognizable and non-tell- able"

5 of 1898.

Amend- ment of section 20A.

16. In section 20A of the principal Act, for the words, brackets and figures "sub-section (J) of section 351 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1398", the words, brackets and figures "sub-section (3) of section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973" shall be substituted.

2 of 1974.

IT After section 20A of the principal Act, the following section shall

be inserted, namely; —

Insertion of new section 20AA.

"20AA. Nothing contained in the Probation of Offenders Act,

20 of 1958.

2 of 1674.

1958 or section 3fiO of the Code of Criminal- Procedure, 1973 shall apply to a person convicted of an offence; under this Act unless that person is under eighteen years 01 age.".

Applica- tion of the Pro- bation of Offenders Act, 1958 and sec- tion 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

18. For section 21 of the principal Act, the following section shall be

substituted, namely : —

Substitu- tion of new sec- tion for section 21.

22 of 1974.

Magls-i trate'3 power to impose enhanced penalties.

"21. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it shall be lawful for any Metro- politan Magistrate or any Judicial Magistrate of the first class to pass any sentence authorised by this Act, except a sentence of im- prisonment for life or for a term exceeding six years, in excess of his powers under the said section.".

19: After section 22 of the principal Act, the following section shall

be inserted, namely: —

Insertion of new section 22A.

22A. The Central Government may give such directions as it may deem necessary to a State Government regarding the carrying into execution of all or any of the provisions of this Act and the! State Government shall comply with such directions.".

Power of Central GOVpTBr mentto , give dir- ections.

80. In section 23 of the principal Act,—

Amend- ment of section 23.

(a) sub-section (1) shall be re-numbered as sub-section (1A)

and—

(i) before sub-section (2A) as so re-numbered, the follow-

ing sub-section shall be inserted, namely: —

"(2) The Central Government may, after consultation with the Committee and after previous publication by noti- fication in the Official Gazette make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act:

Provided that consultation with the Committee may be dispensed with if the Central Government is of the opinion

that circumstances have arisen which render tit necessary to make rules without such consultation, but, in such a case, the Committee shall be consulted within six months of the making of the rules and the Central Government shall take into consideration any suggestions which the Committee may make in relation to the amendment of the said rules.'¹;

(ii) In sub-section (1A) as so re-numbered,—

j8 T&E GAZfiTIlB Of INBIA fiXTfcAORDttJARY [P^r Hr^

S E C. $ •] T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA E X T R A O R D I N A RY

43