New Delhi: The Supreme Court overturns conviction recently with the use of the synthetic yellow food colouring Tartrazine in food products, such as Dal Moong Dhuli, cannot be penalised as an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act). A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh found the earlier conviction of the appellant incorrect, noting that the use of Tartrazine is permitted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (Rules of 1955).
Background
The appellant was originally convicted on August 16, 2011, for food adulteration under Section 16 of the PFA Act. This act addresses penalties for adulteration. The conviction stemmed from the appellant’s possession of 15 kilograms of Dal Moong Dhuli coated with Tartrazine. It is a synthetic yellow food colour. This led to the appellant’s conviction by the Trial Court. The sentence handed down was six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. This later modified to three months and a fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 7 (prohibitions of manufacture, sale, etc., of certain articles of food) read with Section 16 of the PFA Act.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appellant’s challenges to his conviction on appeal.
It was dismissed on December 4, 2013, and again upon revision on March 18, 2019. Subsequently, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. He had argued that the conviction was unjust as Tartrazine is a permitted food colour under the 1955 Rules.
The Supreme Court, noting the appellant, now 60 years old, had already served one month and eight days in jail. He was currently out on bail, referred to Rule 28 of the 1955 Rules. This rule allows the use of Tartrazine as a synthetic food colouring. The Court emphasised that the tested dal sample contained a permitted food colour. Hence, rendering the appellant’s conviction erroneous.
In its judgement, the Supreme Court cited Rule 28, which lists four permitted artificial food colours, including Tartrazine Sunset Yellow FCF. The Court also referenced Rule 29, which specifies the food items that may legally contain these permitted colours, such as biscuits, cakes, pastries, sweets, and certain savoury items.
Conclusion
In conclusion the lower courts had incorrectly convicted the appellant. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, stating, “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.”
