Use Of Artificial Yellow Colouring 'Tartrazine' In Permitted Food Items Not Offence Of Adulteration : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court in its recent order has held that the use of artificial yellow food coloring- Tartrazine in food items like Dal Moong Dhuli cannot penalized as an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act). The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh held the conviction of the appellant as erroneous, since the use of Tartrazine was permitted under the...
The Supreme Court in its recent order has held that the use of artificial yellow food coloring- Tartrazine in food items like Dal Moong Dhuli cannot penalized as an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act).
The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh held the conviction of the appellant as erroneous, since the use of Tartrazine was permitted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (Rules of 1955).
The appellant was convicted for the offence of food adulteration under S.16 of the PFA Act (penalties for adulteration) for possessing 15 Kgs of dal moong dhuli coated with the synthetic food colour- Tartrazine (artificial yellow color) by the Trial Court on August 16, 2011. This conviction was based on the sample testing done in the Laboratory of 750 grams of the dal which was found to contain tartrazine.
The trial court had sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.1000/- which was however modified to three months with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in terms of S.7 ( Prohibitions of manufacture, sale, etc., of certain articles of food) read with S.16 of the PFA Act.
The challenges to the conviction were subsequently rejected in appeal on 04.12.2013 and in revision on 18.03.2019 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The appellant then moved the Apex Court contending that the conviction was wholly unjustified since Tartrazine was a permitted food coloring under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (Rules of 1955).
The Court was further informed that the appellant who is 60 years of age had already served 1 month and 8 days in jail and was presently out on bail.
The Court noted that Rule 28 of the 1955 Rules permitted the use of Tartrazine as a synthetic food colouring. Observing that the sample of 750 grams of dal which was tested by the authorities contained the permitted food coloring, held the conviction of the appellant as erroneous.
"On a reading of the Rule, it is evident that the tartrazine Sunset yellow FCF which is yellow in colour is a permitted synthetic food colour, which could be applied to food. In the instant case, the sample of 750 grams of dal moong dhuli, which was tested in the laboratory also noted that synthetic food colour of tartrazine was used on the said sample and consequently, in the total quantity of 15 kgs. which was found in the possession of the appellant for sale. Since Rule 29 permits the said food colour, the conviction of the appellant under Section 16 is erroneous."
Rule 28 provides a tabulation of 4 permitted food colours (artificial colorings of Red, Yellow, Blue, Green) which includes 'Tartrazine Sunset Yellow FCF'.
Rule 29 enlists the food items in or upon which the permitted food colors may be applied. This includes - Biscuits including biscuit wafer, pastries, cakes, confectionery, thread candies, sweets, savouries (dal moth, mongia, phulgulab, sago papad, dal biji only).
The Court proceeded to set aside the conviction of the appellant by the lower courts.
"Therefore, the order of the High Court sustaining the order of the First Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences is set-aside."
Case Details : MAHESH CHANDER @ MAHESH CHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA (@SLP (CRL.) No(s). 4706/2019)
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 610