The Kerala High Court has affirmed that a salesman who sells food adulterated with an unpermitted synthetic colour is criminally liable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, even if the shop owner is acquitted. This judgment clarifies individual accountability in food safety enforcement, reinforcing that liability attaches to the person who actually sells the adulterated product.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The revision petition challenges the conviction of Abdul Zamad, a salesman, under Section 16(1A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling one kilogram of banana chips containing the synthetic food colour 'tartrazine'. The food sample was purchased by a Food Inspector from a shop in S.Batheri, Wayanad, on 23.10.1997. Laboratory analysis confirmed the presence of tartrazine, which is not permitted for use in banana chips under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
Key Facts
- The Food Inspector purchased the banana chips on 23.10.1997 from a shop where the petitioner was employed as a salesman
- The sample was sent for analysis and confirmed to contain tartrazine on 05.11.1997
- A charge sheet was filed in CC 837/2001 against two accused: Abdul Zamad (petitioner) and the shop owner (second accused)
- Tartrazine is permitted under Rule 28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, but only for food items listed in Rule 29 - banana chips are not among them
- The prosecution relied on oral testimony of PW1 to PW4 and documentary evidence marked as Ext.P1 to P24
- The second accused (shop owner) was acquitted by the Appellate Court due to failure to prove ownership or presence at the time of purchase
Procedural History
- 23.10.1997: Food sample purchased by Food Inspector
- 05.11.1997: Laboratory report confirming tartrazine contamination
- 03.10.2003: Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, S.Batheri convicts petitioner under Section 16(1A)(i) PFA Act and sentences him
- 27.09.2007: Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) II, Kalpetta dismisses appeal (Crl.A No.245/2003), upholding conviction
- 07.04.2026: Kerala High Court delivers judgment on Criminal Revision Petition No.4519/2007
The Parties' Positions
- The petitioner, Abdul Zamad, argued he was merely a salesman and not the owner, and therefore not liable under Section 16(1A)(i)
- He further contended that tartrazine is a permitted colour under Rule 28, making the prosecution legally invalid
- The State maintained that the Act imposes liability on any person who sells adulterated food, regardless of role or ownership
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the conviction and sentence, arguing that the prosecution was legally unsustainable and that his role as a salesman exempted him from criminal liability.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 16(1A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 imposes criminal liability on a salesman who sells adulterated food, even if the shop owner is acquitted, and whether the use of 'tartrazine' in banana chips constitutes an offence under the Act.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that: (1) tartrazine is a permitted synthetic colour under Rule 28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and therefore its presence in food cannot constitute an offence; and (2) as a mere salesman, the petitioner was not the owner or controller of the shop and could not be held criminally responsible for adulteration. Reliance was placed on Mahesh Chander @ Mahesh Chandh v. State of Haryana to argue that tartrazine use is lawful when the food item is listed in Rule 29.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor countered that: (1) Rule 28 permits tartrazine only for food items specified in Rule 29 - banana chips are not among them, making its use in banana chips illegal; and (2) Section 16(1A)(i) explicitly holds liable any person who sells adulterated food, irrespective of their position or ownership status. The acquittal of the second accused did not absolve the petitioner, as the evidence established his direct role in the sale.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed statutory interpretation of Section 16(1A)(i) and Rule 28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. It held that while tartrazine is a permitted colour, its permissibility is strictly limited to food items enumerated in Rule 29. Banana chips are not listed in Rule 29, and therefore the addition of tartrazine to them is unlawful.
"As far as the present case is concerned, the addition of 'Tartrazine' as a synthetic food colour to banana chips, is not permitted under any of the provisions of the Rules and the Act."
The Court further rejected the petitioner’s argument that his role as a salesman conferred immunity. It emphasized that Section 16(1A)(i) imposes liability on "any person" who sells adulterated food, with no exception for employees or agents. The acquittal of the second accused was based on lack of evidence linking him to ownership or presence at the time of sale - a fact that did not alter the petitioner’s direct involvement in the transaction.
The Court reviewed the evidence recorded by the trial court and found no material error in appreciation. The findings of both lower courts were consistent, well-reasoned, and supported by the record. The Court concluded that there was no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Section 16(1A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 were upheld. The petitioner remains convicted for selling adulterated banana chips containing unpermitted tartrazine. No modification to the sentence or relief was granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Salesperson Liability Is Direct and Non-Delegable
- Practitioners must advise clients that under Section 16(1A)(i), liability for selling adulterated food attaches to the person who physically makes the sale, regardless of employment status
- Employers cannot shield employees by claiming ownership or control was lacking - the act of sale itself triggers liability
Permitted Colours Are Context-Specific
- The permissibility of food additives must be assessed against the specific food item, not in isolation
- Relying on Mahesh Chander to justify use of tartrazine in non-listed items is legally unsound
- Food safety inspectors and prosecutors can now confidently proceed against sellers of adulterated products even if owners are acquitted
Acquittal of Owner Does Not Imply Innocence of Seller
- The acquittal of the second accused on evidentiary grounds (lack of proof of ownership or presence) does not create a precedent for exoneration of other participants
- Each accused must be judged on their individual conduct and role in the offence
Enforcement Priority on Retail-Level Accountability
- This judgment reinforces that enforcement under the PFA Act must target the point of sale, not just manufacturers or owners
- Retail staff, including salespersons, cashiers, and delivery personnel, are now clearly within the scope of criminal liability
