Welcome to PesPro

  06 May  2015


Have A Happy Day

This blog attempts to enrich the knowledge of various stake holders in Food chain with  emphasis on world class technologies

Food for thought

Thirukkural – திருக்குறள்

அதிகாரம்/Chapter/Adhigaram: படைச் செருக்கு/Military Spirit/Pataichcherukku 78
இயல்/ChapterGroup/Iyal: படையில்/The Excellence of an Army/Padaiyil 9
பால்/Section/Paal: பொருட்பால்/Wealth/Porutpaal 2
குறள் 771
என்னைமுன் நில்லன்மின் தெவ்விர் பலரென்னை
முன்னின்று கல்நின் றவர்
மு.வ உரை:
பகைவரே! என்னுடைய தலைவர் முன் எதிர்த்து நிற்காதீர்கள், என்னுடைய தலைவர் முன் எதிர்த்து நின்று கல்வடிவாய் நின்றவர் பலர்.
Couplet 771
Ye foes stand not before my lord for many a one
Who did my lord withstand, now stands in stone
O my foes, stand not before my leader; (for) many are those who did so but afterwards stood (in the shape of) statues
Ennaimun Nillanmin Thevvir Palarennai
Munnindru Kalnin Ravar
1 Comment

Posted by on April 19, 2013 in Pest Management Training


FDA Halts Sales Of Global Nutrition Firm’s 15 Products

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ordered global nutrition company Herbalife to stop sales of 15 products and recall the stock from the market, after officials found that the firm had failed to renew its product-approval licence.

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India issues the licence. “Yes, we have taken the action, but I cannot comment further,” said state FDA commissioner Harshadeep Kamble.

Sources in the FDA said that product-approval licence of Herbalife’s 15 food supplements had expired in December last year. The company had been asked to stop the sales of the products across the country, the sources said.

A Herbalife spokesperson said that the company had received approval for its products only for a year. It has applied for a renewal of the same. “…Herbalife submitted letters seeking renewals and are awaiting a response from FSSAI for the same,” the official said.

Two Herbalife distributors in Mumbai said that they had not received any intimation for halting sales from the company’s India headquarters in Bangalore. “I have been associated with the company for the past 10 years. All our products carry the approval sticker. We have not been intimated regarding the notice so far,” said a distributor in Vile Parle.

An FDA official said that the agency received a tip-off about the expired licences. “We conducted an inspection and found that the multinational company had continued to sell the products even after their licences had expired. We have sent a notice to the company asking them to immediately discontinue the sales of the food supplements and also recall the stock.”

The 15 products include multivitamin tablets, and protein powders and shakes. The FDA does not plan to test the products’ quality as FSSAI grants licence to only standardised products.

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 6, 2015 in In the News


FSS Act – Rajasthan HC- Jodhpur – Appeal – Namaste India Foods Vs State of Rajasthan on 6 April, 2015


Dated: 6.4.15.


Mr.Muktesh Maheshwari, for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Rathore, for the respondents.

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned

legality of order dated 23.8.13 passed by the respondent no.4,

the Designated Officer, appointed by the Commissioner, Food

Safety under the provisions of Section 36 of the Food Safety and

Standards Act, 2006 (for short "the Act"), whereby while taking

note of the stand of the petitioner not to send the sample of

'Ghee' taken, for     chemical analysis to   the Referral Food

Laboratory, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the

report of Food Analyst, has been referred for disposal to the

Commissioner, Food Safety. That apart, the petitioner has also

sought directions to the Designated Officer to decide the appeal

filed by the petitioner on merits.

2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

that under the provisions of Section 46(4) of the Act, the appeal

against the report of Food Analyst lie before Designated Officer

and therefore, there was no occasion for the Designated Officer

to refer the appeal for disposal to the Commissioner.

3. On the other hand,the counsel appearing for the

respondents submitted that the appeal preferred by the

petitioner has been referred for the disposal to the

Commissioner, Food Safety inasmuch as, the Designated Officer

is not competent to decide the appeal.

4.I have considered the rival submissions and perused the

material on record.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner has preferred the appeal under

Section 46(4) of the  Act against the report of Food Analyst

dated 30.1.13. A bare perusal of Section 46(4) makes it

abundantly clear that an appeal against the report of the Food

Analyst lie before the Designated Officer, who if so decides is

empowered to refer the matter to the Referral Food Laboratory,

as notified by the Food Authority for opinion. In this view of the

matter, there was no occasion for the Designated Officer to take

a decision not to refer the matter to the Referral Food

Laboratory, merely because the petitioner does not want the

reference of the matter to the Referral Food Laboratory. It is

open for the Designated Officer to refer the matter to Referral

Food Laboratory as notified, if after hearing the parties, he so

decides. That apart, the Designated Officer being competent to

decide the appeal preferred against the report of the Food

Analyst, there was no occasion for the Designated Officer to

refer the appeal for disposal to the Commissioner, Food Safety.

6. In view of the discussion above, the writ petition deserves

   to be allowed.

7. Accordingly,   the   writ   petition   is   allowed.   The   order

   impugned dated 23.8.13 passed by the Designated Officer is set

   aside. The Designated Officer is directed to decide the appeal

   preferred by the petitioner against the report of the Food

   Analysis on merits, within a period of four weeks from the date

   of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.

                                                       (SANGEET LODHA),J.


Leave a comment

Posted by on May 6, 2015 in Court cases


PFA – Rajasthan HC Jodhpur -Criminal Revision Petition – Adulterated milk case – Respondents vs Kola Ram V. State Of Rajasthan on 30 April, 2015



                             O R D E R


PETITIONER:                              RESPONDENTS:
Kola Ram                         v.      State of Rajasthan


Date of Order: 30 April 2015


Mr M.C. Bishnoi, for the petitioner Mr J.P. Bhardwaj, Public Prosecutor This revision petition is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 18th June 1996 passed in Cr. Appeal No.4/1996 upholding the judgment of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 06th April 1996 passed in Cr. Case No.192/1993 whereby the petitioner has been convicted under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act {hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’} and rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years along with fine of Rs.10,000/-and 10 days’ simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.300/- respectively.

2.The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Food Inspector Mr Girish Narayan Mathur while on inspection found that petitioner was selling cow’s milk at High Court colony, Jodhpur. He also learnt that the petitioner was selling milk without license to sell food items. He purchased SB Cr.Revision No.219/1996 750 ml milk for sample testing for which he paid Rs.3/- to the accused-petitioner. The purchased milk was filled in three dry & clean bottles in equal quantities and after adding 20 drops of formalin in each bottle, the bottles were capped, sealed and labelled. The bottles were sealed in the presence of independent witnesses at the site.

3.The samples were sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, Jodhpur. The Public Analyst vide report Ex.P12 dated 24th July 1993 found the sampled milk to be adulterated as it did not conform to standards of purity prescribed for cow’s milk and the sample contained about 14% added water and 43% less fat.

4.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while issuing sanction for prosecution, the competent authority did not apply its mind. This submission can not be accepted as it is clearly mentioned while according sanction that the sanction has been given after taking into account all the documents and understanding those documents. Reference may be made to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma reported as 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 wherein it has been held that if the sanctioning authority has written that it has considered the case diary then it cannot be said that it has not applied his mind. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Jiya Lal reported as 2009 (15) SCC 72 has observed:

“4. In the present case, the learned single judge of the SB Cr.Revision No.219/1996 High Court had opined that the District Magistrate (the appropriate authority in this case) who had granted the sanction order in question had not applied his mind. It was held that since the sanction order did not enumerate reasons, it had been given mechanically and was hence illegal. It was further stated that the said sanction order (Exhibit – P/6 in the proceedings before the Special Judge) had not been proved because the District Magistrate who passed the order had not been subsequently examined as a witness by the prosecution in order to prove the same.

5. In our opinion, both of the above-mentioned findings of the learned single judge of the High Court are not correct. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the `finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge’ under the Act. As per Section 19(3)(a) of the Act `no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned.’

6. The relevant portion of the Act reads as follows :-

“Section 19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution – (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,-

(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;

(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.

SB Cr.Revision No.219/1996 (2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,-

(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub- section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby;

(b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice;

(c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.

(4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,-

(a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction;

SB Cr.Revision No.219/1996

(b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature.”

{emphasis supplied}

7. In the case before us, even if it were to be accepted that there has been an `error, omission or irregularity’ in the passing of the sanction order, the learned single judge of the High Court has not made a finding which shows that a serious failure of justice had been caused to the Respondent. In the absence of such a finding it was not correct for the High Court to set aside the conviction and sentence given by the Special Judge.

8. It was also not justified for the learned single judge to hold that the District Magistrate who had passed the sanction order should have been subsequently examined as a witness by the prosecution in order to prove the same. The sanction order was clearly passed in discharge of routine official functions and hence there is a presumption that the same was done in a bona fide manner. It was of course open to the Respondent to question the genuineness or validity of the sanction order before the Special Judge but there was no requirement for the District Magistrate to be examined as a witness by the prosecution.”

6.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the sample sent for analysis, number mentioned was M/1782 while in the evidence put to petitioner under section 313 CrPC it was stated that sample number was M/1780 and hence, the trial is vitiated. This submission also can not be accepted as this difference in number could be attributed to typographical error and is insignificant. It has not made any material difference and no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the accused-petitioner. Substantial evidence SB Cr.Revision No.219/1996 of the sample being sent for analysis was put before the accused and it can not be said that this aspect has in any manner hampered the defence of the accused. Reference may be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofState (Delhi Administration) v. Dharampal reported as 2001 (10) SCC 372 wherein it was held:

“13. Thus it is to be seen that where an omission, to bring the attention of the accused to an inculpatory material, has occurred that does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings. The accused must show that failure of justice was occasioned by such omission. Further, in the event of an inculpatory material not having been put to the accused, the appellate court can always make good that lapse by calling upon the counsel for the accused to show what explanation the accused has as regards the circumstances established against the accused but not put to him.

14. This being the law, in our view, both the Sessions Judge and the High Court were wrong in concluding that the omission to put the contents of the certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, could only result in the accused being acquitted. The accused had to show that some prejudice was caused to him by the report not being put to him. Even otherwise, it was the duty of the Sessions Judge and/or the High Court, if they found that some vital circumstance had not been put to the accused, to put those questions to the counsel for the accused and get the answers of the accused. If the accused could not give any plausible or reasonable explanation it would have to be assumed that there was no explanation. Both the Sessions Judge and the High Court have overlooked this position of law and failed to perform their duties and thereby wrongly acquitted the accused.”

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the charges were framed in the absence of the accused and hence, whole trial is vitiated. A perusal of the record SB Cr.Revision No.219/1996 indicates that the charges were read over to the counsel for the accused-petitioner as the accused was absent on that day and an application for exemption from attendance had been filed on his behalf. It was open to the accused-

petitioner to have raised this objection during the trial. However, no such objection was raised before the trial court in this regard at any stage by the petitioner. Therefore, the trial of the case can not be held to be vitiated on this account.

8.The learned counsel for the petitioner then argued that no independent witness was examined although samples were taken in their presence and that the samples were not sealed properly. This submission can not merit acceptance as it has come in the evidence of PW1 that the samples were duly sealed and proper procedure had been adopted while seizing and sending the samples for analysis. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Inspector v. G. Satyanarayan reported as 2004 (13) SCC 72 that there is no necessity for examining independent witness in case the evidence of the Food Inspector is trustworthy and supported by seizure memo and analysis report. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:

“4. There is no denial of the fact that the appellant in this case had followed the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid section. The section does not provide for associating any other person as a witness for taking a sample of food for analysis. The courts below committed a mistake of law by acquitting the respondent on the ground that statement of PW-1 had not been corroborated SB Cr.Revision No.219/1996 by other independent witnesses. Corroboration of the statement of main witness is not the requirement of law but is only a rule of prudence.

5. It need not be direct and may be ascertained from the circumstances of a particular case. Under law, uncorroborated testimony of a witness is admissible under Section 133 of the Evidence Act. While looking for corroboration, the court has to keep in mind the broad spectrum of prosecution case and then to see whether there is evidence to lend assurance to that version. The nature and extent of corroboration depends upon the facts of each case.

6. In the instant case, there was sufficient corroboration of the testimony of PW-1 as is evident from the seizure memo and the receipt obtained for sale besides the report of the public analyst. The mere fact that the other witnesses cited by the prosecution had not supported the case of the prosecution was no ground to reject the testimony of PW-1.”

The evidence of PW1, who was the Food Inspector, is trustworthy and hence, can be the basis for maintaining conviction of the accused-petitioner.

9.Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the milk was not properly stirred before sample was taken and hence, the accused was seriously prejudiced in asmuch as this made material difference to the composition of the milk which was drawn for sampling. A perusal of the memo Ex.P7 which was prepared at the site while samples were seized reveals that the sample of the milk was taken after stirring the milk. Therefore, this argument also does not commend acceptance.

10.The learned counsel for the petitioner finally argued that the report of the Public Analyst was not furnished to the SB Cr.Revision No.219/1996 accused so as to enable him to ask for a second analysis. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner also can not be accepted as it has come in evidence that copy of the report was sent to the accused-petitioner on 26.10.1993 vide Ex.P.15 and postal receipt Ex.P16. It is apposite to refer to section 13(1) and (2) of the Act which is reproduced hereinunder:

“13. Report of Public analyst- (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 analysis.

(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 institution 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 been 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 application 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 article 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-section (2), the court shall require the Local (Health) Authority to forward the part or parts of the sample kept by the said Authority and upon such requisition being made, the said Authority shall forward the part or parts of the sample to the court within a SB Cr.Revision No.219/1996 period of five days from the date of receipt of such requisition.

(2B) On receipt of the part or parts of the sample from the Local (Health) Authority under subsection (2A), the court shall first ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in clause(b) of sub-section (1) of section 11 are intact and the signature or thumb impression, as the case may be, is not tampered with and dispatch the part or, as the case may be, one of the parts of the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory who shall thereupon send a certificate to the court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the part of the sample specifying the result of the analysis.

(2C) Where two parts of the sample have been sent to the court and only one part of the sample has been sent by the court to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-section(2B), the court shall, as soon as practicable, return the remaining part to Local (Health) Authority and that Authority shall 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 damaged, the court shall require the Local (Health) Authority to forward 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 the Central Food Laboratory, the court shall not continue with the proceedings pending before it in relation to the prosecution.

SB Cr.Revision No.219/1996 (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.”

This section, thus, provides a right to the accused to seek analysis from central laboratory in case he is not satisfied with the first report. However, in the instant case, the accused-petitioner did not submit any application under section 13(2) of the Act for getting the same tested through a central food laboratory. Hence, he cannot derive any benefit from this aspect.

11.It is noteworthy that the evidence led by PW1, who is the Food Inspector, along with the documents on record fully established the prosecution case. A perusal of the report of Public Analyst Ex.P12 clearly indicates that the milk was adulterated. It is also mentioned in the report that the seal was duly affixed and intact when the sample was received from the Food Inspector. The relevant extract of the report Ex.P12 is reproduced hereinunder:

“FORM-III PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY, JODHPUR Report No.L.S./208/PHL/In/93/173 dated 24.7.1993 I hereby certify that I, M.S. Nair, Public Analyst for Jodhpur Division duly appointed under provisions SB Cr.Revision No.219/1996 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, received on the 17 th day of July 1993 from the Food Inspector Shri G.N. Mathur, Jodhpur Distt a sample of cow milk bearing Code No.M and Serial No.1782 of the Local Health Authority, Jodhpur for analysis, properly sealed and fastened, and that I found that seal intact and unbroken.

The seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector and the sample was in a condition fit for analysis.

I further certify that I have analysed the aforementioned sample and declare the result of the analysis to be as follows:

Milk fat ………………………………… 1.7% Milk Solids not fat ………………………… 7.3% Stanch and cane sugar ………………….. Absent and am of the opinion that the sample does not conform to the prescribed standards under Appendix ‘B’ of P.F.A. Rules 1955 and is, therefore, adulterated. The sample contains about 14% of added water and about 43% of milk fat is abstracted from the sample.”

Therefore, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction there is no case for interference in the concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below.

12.The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued in the alternative that in case conviction is upheld then leniency should be shown in sentence as the incident occurred over two decades ago and the petitioner is now over 60 years of age. He also stated that wife of the accused-petitioner is suffering from neurological problem. The allegation against the petitioner is of adding water in the milk and no one is said to have suffered direct consequence of ill health. The SB Cr.Revision No.219/1996 petitioner is stated to have remained in custody for 19 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that sentence for the period already undergone by the accused- petitioner would meet the ends of justice. He has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nand Lal v. State of Uttrakhand reported as (2010) 4 SCC 562 wherein sentence of the accused was reduced to the period already undergone. However, this judgment is distinguishable on facts from the instant case as the accused therein was over 70 years of age and had furnished medical record for his ailment.

13.The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana reported as AIR 1981 SC 1723, which is distinguishable as the appellant therein was about 70 years of age, suffering from ailment and only 0.4% deficiency in milk fat was found. In the instant case, the deficiency in milk fat is 43% and 14% added water has also been found. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofGurmukh Singh v. State of Punjab reported as AIR 1972 SC 824 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also distinguishable as matter therein only pertained to sale of food articles without license and not of adulteration in food.

14.Nonetheless, it has to be borne in mind that adulteration of food has serious and deleterious effect on public health. The object and purpose of the Act is to eliminate danger to human life from sale of unwholesome articles of food. It has SB Cr.Revision No.219/1996 been enacted to curb the widespread menace of food adulteration. The right against hazardous and injurious food articles is also a fundamental right under the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The evil, thus, has to be dealt with a stern hand. The sentence of the period of 19 days already undergone would be too lenient and below the minimum punishment prescribed by the legislature for the offence. There are no specific circumstances which may warrant punishment below the minimum prescribed.

15.However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is facing prosecution ever since the incident took place 21 years ago and he is now over 60 years of age it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence from 2 years to a period of 6 months.

16.Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner is maintained. The sentence of the petitioner is reduced to a period of 6 months. The bail bonds of the petitioner are cancelled and he is directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence. He shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs.300/-.


Leave a comment

Posted by on May 6, 2015 in Court cases


10 Cancer-Causing Foods You Should Avoid

10 Cancer Causing Foods You Should Avoid

The food we eat has the ability to affect our health in very big ways – for better or for worse. Eat too much fat and you increase your risk of heart disease. Drink too much alcohol and you damage your liver. In today’s day and age of processed and “fast” food, much of what we eat is actually a detriment to our health. But can food actually cause cancer? How much damage does our diet actually do to our cells? Here are 10 foods that have been found by studies to increase cancer risks:

1 – Red Meat

Red meat cooked at high temperatures contains mutagens that expose humans to NOC (N-nitroso compound) – a compound directly linked to colorectal cancer. [1] A 2013 study revealed that red meat consumption was a risk factor for cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, nasopharynx, esophagus, rectum, pancreas, breast, endometrium, and ovary. [2]

2 – Alcohol

Alcohol abuse is one of the leading causes of liver cirrhosis – a condition characterized by the irreversible damage to the liver. In certain cases, alcoholism can cause liver cancer as well. According to a 2012 study conducted in Japan, heavy alcohol drinking by both mean and women significantly increased the risk for acquiring primary liver cancer. [3]

3 – Artificial Sweeteners

With recent studies linking the use of artificial sweeteners to metabolic disease [4] [5], its effects on cancer risk has become a popular topic. While the official position of the US FDA body is that artificial sweeteners are safe, a study published in 2012 revealed a potential link between artificial sweeteners and leukemia and lymphoma in men – and while these results were inconclusive, the possibility of causation and association exists. [6]

4 – Genetically Modified Food

The controversial Seralini study showed huge tumors on rats that were fed GMO food. Although this study has been argued over endlessly – there’s simply no need to be a “lab rat” yourself. Why risk it? It seems fairly logical that eating mutated food entails a risk of mutating your body – and one of the old “standards” of the pro-GMO movement, that the mutant DNA is fully broken down and rendered harmless, has been challenged. When something is genetically modified, its structure changes – which means that how “safe” it is for consumption changes as well. Genes or DNA introduced to the crop are not completely broken down by the body, meaning they can be potentially absorbed by the body’s gut bacteria and cause antiobiotic resistance. Also, the complete effects of genome modification are unpredictable. [7]

5 – Refined Sugar

When products are refined, they lose much of their naturally-occurring nutrients, basically providing “empty” calories and taste to food. Refined sugar is a big culprit because not only is it low in nutrients, it also contributes to high glycemic load. High glycemic load has been linked multiple times over the years to cancer, with a recent study in 2012 revealing an association between high glycemic load and the risk of breast cancer.[8]

6 — Manufactured Soft Drinks

On a similar note, a high intake of sugary drinks and foods is associated with increasing risks for diabetes and other metabolic disorders. However, soft drinks in particular have been directly linked or associated with a variety of cancers, according to a review of several studies done by June in 2012. [9]

7 – Smoked And Grilled Meat

Mutagens are formed in food when they are exposed to high temperatures in grilling and smoking. Intake of these mutagens is linked directly to cancer risk, specifically prostate cancer according to a study in 2005. [10]Mutagens – specifically heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) – damage DNA, increasing the risk for colorectal and pancreatic cancers as well. [11]

8 – Hydrogenated Oils

Most cooking oils are hydrogenated, meaning they are heavily processed to prolong their shelf-life. In a study in 2000, the intake of hydrogenated oil was associated with an increased risk for adenomas. [12] Hydrogenated oils are likewise rich in trans fats, which increase the risk for colon and colorectal cancer in men and women.[13] [14]

9 – Non-Organic Produce (Pesticide Sprayed)

The danger of consuming non-organic fruits and vegetables is the risk of consuming pesticides that have been sprayed on them. It’s been demonstrated that these are absorbed by the produce and washing is not enough. Peeling helps – but in many fruit and veg, the best nutrients are in the peel. A 2014 study revealed that exposure to pesticides greatly increased the risk of cancer in multiple organ systems, except Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. [15]

10 – Farmed Salmon

A topic of interest in the health community lately is the safety of farmed salmon. According to the Cleveland Clinic, farmed salmon has many health risks associated with it (compared to wild salmon) because of (1) lower nutritional content, (2) persistent organic pollutants or POPs, (3) Carcinogenic chemicals from the water the fish live in, (4) high content of contaminants, and (5) high antibiotic levels – all of which can damage DNA and cause cancer. [16]

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 6, 2015 in Research




As many as 22 students of Sahjanand School of Nursing at Zundal village in Ahmedabad were rushed to a Chandkheda hospital after they suffered from food poisoning after allegedly eating food at the hostel mess on Saturday. While 22 girls have been admitted, it is learnt that several more suffered from abdominal pains and other effects of food poisoning. The students had consumed sweets made from bottle gourd (dudhi ka halwa), chana-puri and pulao among other food on Saturday night.

By Sunday morning, several students began experiencing symptoms with severe vomiting, dehydration and abdominal pain. While most students claimed that the institute otherwise serves hygienic food, some students under condition of anonymity said they do not receive potable water. Ruchi Vaniya, a third year nursing student, said, “I had not eaten anything from outside for the past couple of days. Yet, I experienced vomiting and severe abdominal pain.” Damini Pathak (19), a first year student, said, “I started feeling the effect on Saturday evening after I had food at the hostel.”

Hostel authorities said they only serve freshly prepared food to its students. “Even snacks and breakfast is served fresh,” said an official, adding that they have installed an RO water system at the institute. Principal Himanshu Trivedi said, “We take utmost care to maintain hygiene. I do not know if students consumed food outside the institute. We admitted them as soon as we learnt of the problem.” Dr Dhaval Thakar of Shreeji Hospital in Chandkheda said, “We treated 22 students for food poisoning that could have been caused due to the hot weather, water or food. “


» Wash your hands, utensils and food surfaces often with hot, soapy water
» Keep raw food separate from ready-to-eat food to prevent cross-contamination
» Cook food to a safe temperature especially seafood
» Refrigerate or freeze perishable items within two hours of purchasing or preparing them
» If room temp is above 32.2°C then refrigerate within an hour » Defrost food safely. Don’t thaw it at room temperature
» If you microwave frozen food using “defrost” or ‘50% power’ setting, be sure to cook it immediately
» Throw it out when in doubt. Don’t taste food that you’re unsure about
» If you experience symptoms of food poisoning like stomach pain, diarrhoea, vomiting, feaver, nausea or headache, see a doctor

ahmedabadmirror -050515

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 5, 2015 in Food poisoning


PFA – Nutralite “Misbranding” case -Madhya Pradesh HC – Surendra And Co., Dal Bazar, … vs Rajesh Kumar Rai on 1 May, 2015


                          SB : JUSTICE S.K. PALO

                            M.Cr.C. No. 9263/2011

                           Surendra & Company
                        Rajesh Kumar Rai and others

Shri K.N. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri R.S. Dhakad, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Advocate for the respondent No.3.


(01/05/2015) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pending as Criminal Case No.7197/2011 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior registered under Section 7/15 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rules known as Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

Briefly stated the factual matrix is as follows: the complainant/ respondent No.2 is the Food Inspector serving under the respondent No.1 Deputy Director Foods and Drugs Administration, District- Gwalior. He has been authorized by Public Health and Family Welfare Department and also by Director Food and Drugs Administration and Local Health officer to observe the Prevention of Food Adulteration in Gwalior. The complainant / respondent No.2 on 13.06.2011 at about 4:30 pm came to the shop of the petitioner, which is in the Firm Future Retail Ltd., Deendayal City Mall, Phoolbag, which is run by Surendra and Company. He purchased three samples of Nutralite “Healthier than Butter” from the manager Shivanand Jha at a cost of Rs.330/-. The samples are of batch No.K-122, PKD 05/2011. He has also obtained receipt for the payment he made and given a notice of form No.6 to Shivanand Jha.

He labelled the samples and wrapped the sample by brown paper and thereafter sealed. The No.147679 was affixed on the sample. Every sample was sealed by him. During this process Smt. Shashi Mudgal and Shri Ajay Soori witnessed the said proceedings. The said sample was sent to State Level Food Examination Laboratory, Bhopal by registered post. The other two samples were kept in the office safely. After examination the said sample, the Laboratory by its report dated 21.07.2011 informed the food department that the sample sent, was “substandard” and “misbranded”. Therefore, the Food Inspector lodged the complaint against the manager of the shop Shivanand Jha, firm Future Retail Limited, Deendayal Mall and the manufacturer and marketing agent “Judas Wellness Limited” Registered Office Judas Tower Satellite, Cross Road, Ahmedabad, and the petitioner vendor Surendra & Company, Dalbazar Gwalior.

The present petition has been filed by Surendra & Company on the ground that the proceedings filed by the respondent no. 1 against the petitioner and other accused persons deserves to be quashed. The Public Analyst does not have any authority or competence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules made thereunder even to opine a product as ‘misbranded’. No methodology is defined under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules made thereunder for reporting a product as ‘misbranded’.

The Magistrate fell in error in not considering that summoning of the accused in criminal case is a serious matter, without examining nature of allegations made in the complainant and considering the oral and documentary evidence that it is not sufficient to bring in the charge to the accused as held by M/s. Pepsi Food Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in AIR 1998 SC 128.

‘Misbranded’ as defined in Section 2(ix) of the Act and interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of “Bal Kishan Thakur Vs. Municipal Corporation, Delhi” reported in AIR 1979 SC 1004. It is also contended that the petitioner is not a manufacturer and not having licence to manufacture the product cannot be prosecuted for a product, which is alleged to be ‘misbranded’.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the Magistrate fell in error in not appreciating the meaning of the word “associated” in Rule 49(23) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, which provided that word “butter” shall not be associated while labeling the product. “Associated” means being connected with or in relation to as interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Vs. Narayan Iyengar reported in AIR 1965 SC 1916. It is also contended that the Magistrate fell in error in not considering the allegations made in the complaint even after taken to be true in its entirety do not constitute an offence against the petitioner because the product is not “misbranded”, unless it resembles another article of food in the name of which it is sold. For this contention counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Municipal Corporation, Delhi Vs. Thouram reported in ICR 1974 Delhi.

The petitioner is only the vendor of the product, he has displayed the said product as supplied to it by the manufacturer, packer and marketing agency without any changes to the said packaged product. Since the allegation in the complaint is with regard to the content displayed on the package and not about the product itself, it is clear that the petitioner has not committed any offence.

It is further claimed without prejudiced to the submission of the petitioner Rule 49(23) of the said Rule shows that the requirement of not associating the word ‘butter’ is in respect of the label and not the package.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that this is a fit case for invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No.7197/2011 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior.

Learned counsel for the state opposing the contentions submitted that in the label use of the term “butter” is prohibited, whereas in the label of the food product Neutralite it is mentioned that “Healthier than Butter”. Which means “misbranded”. She also contended that the report submitted by the Public Analyst indicates that acid value of the extracted fat is not as per standard prescribed. The petitioner is the offender is liable under Section 7(i) and 7(ii) read with Section 16(i)-A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.

Having heard both the parties and after going through the record, it is felt necessary to examine the provisions. In section 2(ix) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act:

“(ix)”misbranded” – an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded-

(a) if it is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, or resembles I a manner likely to deceive, another article of food under the name of which it is sold, and is not plainly and conspicuously labelled so as to indicate its true character;

(b) if it is falsely stated to be the product of any place or country;

(c) if it is sold by a name which belongs to another article of food;

(d) if it is so coloured, flavoured or coated, powdered or polished that the fact that the article is damaged, is concealed or if the article is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is;

(e) if false claims are made for it upon the label or otherwise;

(f) if, when sold in packages which have been sealed or prepared by or at the instance of the manufacturer or producer and which bear his name and address, the contents of each package are not conspicuously and correctly stated on the outside thereof within the limits of variability prescribed under this Act;

(g) if the package containing it, or the label on the package bears any statement, design or device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which is false or misleading in any material particular; or if the package is otherwise deceptive with respect to its contents;

(h) if the package containing it or the label on the package bears the name of a fictitious individual or company as the manufacturer or producer of the article;

(i) if it purports to be, or is represented as being, for special dietary uses, unless its label bears such information as may be prescribed concerning its vitamin, mineral, or other dietary properties in order sufficiently to inform its purchaser as to its value for such uses;

(j) if it contains any artificial flavouring, artificial colouring or chemical preservative, without a declaratory label stating that fact, or in contravention of the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder;

(k) if it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder;”

As per Rule 49(23) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955, it is provided that:

“[(23) The fat spread shall not be sold in loose form. It shall be sold in sealed packages weighing not more than 500 gms. The word “butter” shall not be associated while labelling the product. The sealed package shall be sold or offered for sale only under AGMARK certification mark bearing the label declaration as provided under rule 42 besides other labelling requirements under these rules.]”

Food packet purchased by the Food Inspector contains the words “Nutralite” (Healthier then Butter). As per the complaint of the Food Inspector using the word ‘butter’ in the labeling of the product is prohibited. Therefore, it violation of Section 2(ix)(x) of the Food Adulteration Act and Rule 49(23) of Food Adulteration Rules. Therefore, the word butter used in the label constitute “misbranding”.

It would be appropriate to examine the Public Analyst report dated 21.07.2011 in which the Analyst has stated that the food product examined does not confirm the standard prescribed as per the provisions laid down under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 in respect of the above test.

The comparative chart is given below to ascertain the correct position of the analyst report:

 S.No.     Quality          Name of       Result      Prescribed
          Characteristics   Method of                 Standards as
                            test used                 per Rules
   1.     Fat               Q.G.H.S.      69.5%       Not more
                            Method                    than 80%
                                                      not less
                                                      than 40%
   2.     Moisture                        29.0%       Not more
                                                      than 56%
                                                      not less
                                                      than 16%
   3.     Melting point of        -       36.1º C     Not more
          extracted fat                               than 37º C
          (capillary    slip
   4.     Acid Value of           -       0.89%       Not more
          extracted fat                               than 0.5%
   5.     Bandowin test of        -       Positive       -
          extracted fat
   6.     Added colour            -       Absent         -
   7.     Test for salt           -       Positive       -
   8.     Visible extraneous      -       Nil            -

Though the analyst has not mentioned the prescribed standard as per item A.31 of appendix-B in his report but the acid value of extracted fat in the report has been found to be 0.89, whereas it should not be more than 0.5 as required in item A.31 of Appendix-B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955.

In this regard, the petitioner has not offered any satisfactory explanation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the case of M/s F.C. Food (Supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 26 and 28 has analysed the powers of the High Court. In the words of the Hon’ble Apex Court :-

“Para No.26: Nomenclature under which peition is filed is not quite relevant and that does not debar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses unless there is special procedure prescribed which procedure is mandatory. If in a case like the present one the Court finds that the appellants could not invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court can certainly treat the petition one under Article 227 or Secton 482 of the Code. It may not, however, be lost sight of that provisions exist in the Code of revision and appeal but sometime for immediate relief Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 may have to be resorted to for correcting some grave errors that might be committed by the subordinate Courts. The present petition though filed in the High Court as one under Articles 226 and 227 could well be treated under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Page No.28: Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording the preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”

However, the question remained to be examined in the present case that whether the food product examined, was sub-standard and use of word “butter”, mentioned in the label of the food product can be permissible. In the case of M/s Pepsi Food, the allegation was that the said beverage under brand “Lehar Pepsi” was adulterated but the petitioner was not the manufactured, therefore, the same case law is not attracted in the present case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to fortify his view by placing reliance in the case of Balkishan Thapar 1977 (Supra) in which it has been held that :

“Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954), Section 2(ix) (a) and (g) – Preparation labelled “as sweet as Saccharin but not as bitter as Saccharin”

– Preparation could not be held to have been misbranded as Saccharin or preparation of the type of Saccharin within the meaning of Section 2(ix) (a) and

(g) – 1975 F.A.J. 220 (Delhi) Reversed.”

The Hon’ble Apex Court in this case dealt with the question of “misbranding” related to Saccharin. In its label, it is mentioned that “as sweet as Saccharin but not as bitter as Saccharin”, giving an impression to the purchaser that preparation sold was sweet as Saccharin but not as bitter as Saccharin. This was indicated merely to lay emphasis on the sweetness of the preparation, therefore, the hon’ble Apex Court has held it not within ambit of “misbranding”.

In the present context, despite the fact that term will not be associated while labeling product, as has been stated above, word “butter” has been used to promote the sale by labeling it as “healthier than butter”. Thus, the above citation is of no avail in the present case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied in another case of Pooranlal Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2007(1) MPLJ 1990, in which it is held that the question raised was of sold packet of iodize salt which was purchased from the licenced manufacturer in packets. Therefore, the petitioner could not be held responsible for the sale of iodize salt. Inherent powers of the Court was invoked because the party availed the right of revision before the Court of Sessions. The same party again cannot avail as second revision as it is barred. However, it does not bar to invoke its inherent power to remove the abuse of process of Court.

Sub-section 2 of Section 19 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, provides that :

“[(2) A vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves-

(a) that he purchased the article of food-

(i) in a case where a license is prescribed for the sale thereof, from duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer,

(ii) in any other case, from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer, with a written warranty in the prescribed from; and

(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.]”

At this juncture, when the food material was purchased from the petitioner’s shop Surendra and Company, the petitioner has to prove that he has purchased the food packet from duly licenced manufacturer, distributor or dealer. The petitioner as vendor can avail the benefit of sub-section 2 of Section 19 of the said Act, only when he proves the same.

Sub-section 1 of Section 19 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides that:

“it shall be no defence in a prosecution for an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food to allege merely that the vendor was ignorant of the nature, substance or quality of the food sold by him or that the purchaser having purchased any article for analysis was not prejudiced by the sale”

In the light of the above, the vendor/petitioner is to prove that he purchased / questioned the article of food from the licenced manufacturer.

At this stage, it would not be appropriate to exonerate the petitioner/vendor merely that he was ignorant of the nature of substance of the quality of food article.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Parakh Foods Limited Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2008) 4 SCC 584, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has exonerated the appellant in the case of “misbranding” of Soyabean oil. In the label photographs of vegetables which are not soyabean is depicted. Holding that the appellant has used pictures of vegetables on the label of the food product, which is refined soyabean oil for preparation of vegetables depicted thereon. In other words, the label does not claim that the soyabean oil has been extracted or prepared from the vegetables. Therefore, the prohibit expression which are exaggeration of quality of the product does not attract.

The above case is totally in a different footing and therefore, the same cannot be applied in the present context.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also preferred to cite the case of Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others Vs. Union of India reported in (2011) 8 SCC 274.

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered vires of amendment made in the Food Adulteration Rules 1955, wherein it was made compulsory iodisation of common salt in human consumption. This case law is also of no avail in the present context as it is in a different footing.

Similarly, Dr. Manu Seth Vs. Food Inspector reported in MANU/PH/1544/2008 decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Gopi Nath and Sons Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another reported in 1981 CriLJ 175 decided by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Selvakumar Vs. State, Represented by the Food Inspector Madurai Corporation reported in 2010 Indlaw MAD 1788 decided by the High Court of Madras are in different context and are in different footing, therefore, does not attract in the present case.

With the above discussions, it is evident that direct traces of the allegations contained in the complainant against the petitioner, does not warrant quashing the charges against the petitioner/vendor.

Accordingly, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner, is hereby dismissed.

(S.K. Palo) Judge

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 5, 2015 in Court cases


FSS Act -Madhya Pradesh HC – Appellate Authority not constituted case – Sanat Singhai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 2015



Mr.Praveen Chourasiya, Advocate for the petitioner. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 7.2.2015 passed by the Additional Collector by imposing a fine of Rs.40,000/- on the petitioner under the provisions of the Food Standard and Safety Act, 2006. Against the aforesaid order an appeal lies. However, he submits that the appellate authority has not been constituted.

In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for petitioner prays for adjournment in order to enable him to apprise this Court whether the appellate authority under Act 2006 is constituted.

As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the next week.


Leave a comment

Posted by on May 5, 2015 in Court cases


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 574 other followers

%d bloggers like this: