Criminal Liability For Adulteration Of Food Products In Nepal

16 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

Criminal Liability for Adulteration of Food Products in Nepal

Food adulteration is a serious public health issue and is treated as a criminal offense in Nepal under the Food Act 1966, the Food Regulations 1970, and Nepal Penal Code 2017. Adulteration refers to the addition of harmful or prohibited substances in food or the removal of essential ingredients to deceive consumers.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

Food Act 1966 (as amended):

Section 3: Prohibits sale of adulterated food.

Section 5: Prohibits food that is unsafe, contaminated, or injurious to health.

Section 6: Penalty for selling adulterated food, including imprisonment and fines.

Nepal Penal Code 2017:

Section 244: Offense of adulteration of food and drugs causing public harm.

Section 245: Punishment for selling unsafe or adulterated food knowingly.

Section 246: Liability in case adulteration causes injury or death.

Consumer Protection Act 2018:

Provides civil remedies and compensation for victims of unsafe food.

1. HMG vs Ram Kumar Sharma (Adulteration of Milk)

Facts:
The accused was selling milk adulterated with detergent and water to increase volume. A consumer complained after experiencing digestive problems. The Department of Food Technology collected milk samples and sent them to a laboratory for testing.

Role of Expert Witness:
A food technology expert conducted chemical analysis, confirming the presence of detergent and abnormal water content. The expert prepared a report verifying adulteration.

Court Decision:
The court convicted the accused under the Food Act Section 6 and Penal Code Section 245. He was sentenced to one year imprisonment and fined NPR 50,000.

Lesson:
Chemical testing by experts is crucial in proving adulteration, as physical inspection alone is insufficient.

2. HMG vs Sita Devi KC (Adulteration of Cooking Oil)

Facts:
The accused sold cooking oil mixed with cheaper oils and industrial dyes to enhance color. Laboratory tests revealed the presence of prohibited synthetic coloring agents.

Legal Provisions:

Food Act 1966, Sections 3 and 5

Penal Code 2017, Sections 244 and 245

Role of Expert Witness:
A chemist from the food laboratory testified on the method of testing and confirmed the presence of industrial dyes not permitted for human consumption.

Court Decision:
The accused was convicted, and the court emphasized that adulteration with harmful chemicals endangers public health and attracts both imprisonment and fines.

Lesson:
Even visually “safe-looking” adulterants can be illegal and harmful; expert chemical analysis is mandatory.

3. HMG vs Ramesh Thapa (Adulteration of Spices)

Facts:
The accused added artificial color and starch to turmeric powder to increase weight and enhance appearance. The adulteration was discovered during a routine inspection.

Legal Provisions:

Food Act Sections 3, 5, 6

Penal Code Sections 244, 245

Role of Expert Witness:
A food scientist conducted laboratory analysis and testified about adulteration techniques and health risks associated with starch and color additives.

Court Decision:
The court held that adulteration, even for commercial gain, constitutes a criminal offense. The accused received a fine of NPR 25,000 and six months imprisonment.

Lesson:
Adulteration for commercial profit is penalized regardless of immediate health impact; intent to deceive consumers is sufficient for criminal liability.

4. HMG vs Krishna Lal Sharma (Adulteration of Milk Powder with Starch)

Facts:
The accused mixed starch into milk powder to increase quantity. Complaints arose from consumers reporting indigestion and allergic reactions.

Legal Provisions:

Food Act Sections 3, 6

Penal Code Sections 244, 246

Role of Expert Witness:
A food laboratory expert provided testimony confirming the presence of starch and explained its impact on health when mixed in large quantities.

Court Decision:
The court held the accused criminally liable, noting that food adulteration causing health hazards falls under Section 246 (causing injury by adulterated food).

Lesson:
Nepalese law penalizes adulteration that causes harm to consumers, establishing both criminal and civil liability.

5. HMG vs Maya Devi (Adulteration of Soft Drinks)

Facts:
The accused operated a small beverage unit and was found selling soft drinks containing industrial sugar substitutes and unauthorized preservatives.

Legal Provisions:

Food Act 1966, Sections 3 and 5

Penal Code Sections 244 and 245

Role of Expert Witness:
Food technologists conducted laboratory analysis of the soft drinks, confirming the presence of non-permissible chemical preservatives.

Court Decision:
The accused was convicted and fined NPR 40,000. The court emphasized that even small-scale producers are liable under the Food Act and Penal Code.

Lesson:
Liability is not limited to large manufacturers; even small vendors are criminally liable for adulteration.

6. HMG vs Ram Bahadur Basnet (Adulteration Causing Death)

Facts:
A batch of contaminated noodles caused food poisoning in a school canteen, leading to hospitalization and one death. Investigation revealed the noodles contained toxic chemicals and expired ingredients.

Legal Provisions:

Penal Code Sections 244, 246 (adulteration causing injury or death)

Food Act 1966, Sections 3 and 6

Role of Expert Witness:
Food chemists and toxicologists confirmed that chemicals present in the noodles were lethal in the quantities found.

Court Decision:
The accused was sentenced to five years imprisonment under Section 246 of the Penal Code and fined. The case became a precedent for food adulteration causing death, demonstrating the gravity of liability.

Lesson:
Nepalese law provides enhanced penalties if adulteration results in serious injury or death. Expert toxicological analysis is key in linking the product to harm.