NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has overturned a conviction for food adulteration, citing that the use of artificial yellow food colouring, Tartrazine, in dal moong dhuli is permissible under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
The case involved an appellant convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- by the Trial Court on August 16, 2011, for possessing 15 kg of dal moong dhuli coated with Tartrazine. The conviction was based on laboratory testing of a 750-gram sample, which found the presence of Tartrazine.
The trial court’s sentence was later modified to three months with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in terms of Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appellant challenged the conviction in appeal and revision but was rejected by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on December 4, 2013, and March 18, 2019, respectively.
The appellant then moved the Supreme Court, contending that the conviction was wholly unjustified since Tartrazine was a permitted food colouring under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The Court was informed that the appellant, who is 60 years old, had already served 1 month and 8 days in jail and was presently out on bail.
ALSO READ: Sibal under attack: SC bar members express shock at resolution, defense for Mamata – THE NEW INDIAN
The Supreme Court bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh held that the use of Tartrazine was permitted under Rule 28 of the 1955 Rules, which provides a tabulation of 4 permitted food colours, including Tartrazine Sunset Yellow FCF. Rule 29 enlists the food items in or upon which the permitted food colours may be applied, including biscuits, pastries, cakes, confectionery, thread candies, sweets, and savouries like dal moth, mongia, phulgulab, sago papad, and dal biji.
The Court noted that the sample tested contained the permitted food colouring, and thus, the appellant’s conviction under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, was incorrect. The court proceeded to set aside the appellant’s conviction by the lower courts.