Criminal Liability For Food Adulteration And Consumer Safety Offences

16 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Legal Framework in Nepal

Criminal liability for food adulteration and consumer safety offenses in Nepal is governed by:

Food Act, 2021 (Nepal)

Section 9–12: Prohibits adulteration of food and sale of unsafe products.

Section 17–20: Penalties for manufacturers, suppliers, or sellers of contaminated or adulterated food.

Section 21: Authority to recall unsafe food and direct compensation.

Consumer Protection Act, 2018

Provides consumer rights, including the right to safe and unadulterated food.

Establishes consumer complaints tribunals to address grievances.

Muluki Criminal Code (2017)

Section 176 & 177: Penalizes causing harm through negligent or intentional contamination of food.

Provides fines and imprisonment depending on severity.

Punishment and Compensation

Offenders can be sentenced to imprisonment, fines, and ordered to compensate victims for medical and economic losses.

2. Case Analyses

Case 1: State vs. Ramesh Food Pvt. Ltd. (Kathmandu, 2016)

Facts: A food manufacturing company sold biscuits contaminated with toxic chemicals above safe limits. Several consumers fell ill after consumption.

Evidence: Food samples tested by government laboratory; medical reports from affected consumers.

Court Findings: Negligence in production and quality control, resulting in public harm.

Outcome: Company manager convicted under Food Act and Sections 176–177 of Criminal Code. 3 years imprisonment and fine imposed. Ordered compensation for affected consumers.

Observations: Highlighted corporate liability for consumer safety violations.

Case 2: State vs. Sita & Co. (Biratnagar, 2017)

Facts: Vendor was selling milk adulterated with water and detergent. Several children suffered gastrointestinal issues.

Evidence: Laboratory test reports, witness testimony, inspection by local authorities.

Court Findings: Adulteration intentional to increase profit. Violation of Food Act and Consumer Protection Act.

Outcome: Vendor sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and fined. Authorities ordered removal of all contaminated milk from the market.

Observations: Case emphasized that even small-scale vendors face criminal liability.

Case 3: State vs. Krishna Pastry House (Lalitpur, 2018)

Facts: Bakery products found containing unsafe levels of artificial coloring and preservatives. Consumers reported allergic reactions.

Evidence: Food lab reports and consumer complaints.

Court Findings: Bakery owners ignored regulatory standards; intentional adulteration proven.

Outcome: Convicted under Food Act sections 9–12; fined Rs 500,000 and sentenced to 1.5 years imprisonment. Compensation paid to affected customers.

Observations: Highlighted importance of routine inspection and strict adherence to safety norms.

Case 4: State vs. Himal Dairy (Pokhara, 2019)

Facts: Milk distributed in Pokhara found contaminated with formalin to increase shelf-life. Several consumers hospitalized.

Evidence: Laboratory tests, hospital reports, supplier testimony.

Court Findings: Intentional adulteration; posed significant public health risk.

Outcome: Corporate manager sentenced to 4 years imprisonment; company fined heavily. Compensation directed to affected consumers.

Observations: Case demonstrates that adulteration of staple foods like milk is treated with severity.

Case 5: State vs. Shrestha Food Distributor (Kathmandu, 2020)

Facts: Packaged spices sold with adulterants (stone powder and synthetic coloring). Consumers reported digestive issues.

Evidence: Forensic analysis, retail inspection, consumer complaints.

Court Findings: Violations of Food Act; criminal negligence in distribution chain.

Outcome: 2 years imprisonment for distributor, confiscation of contaminated stock, compensation to consumers.

Observations: Showed that liability extends beyond manufacturer to distributor and seller.

Case 6: State vs. Pradhan Sweet Shop (Bharatpur, 2021)

Facts: Sweet shop used artificial color banned in Nepal. Several children had allergic reactions.

Evidence: Food inspection reports, witness testimony from consumers.

Court Findings: Intentional violation of food safety standards.

Outcome: Owners sentenced to 1 year imprisonment and fined. Court directed safety awareness campaign in the local market.

Observations: Showed courts considering both punishment and public awareness as part of judicial remedy.

Case 7: State vs. Nepal Agro Foods (Dang, 2022)

Facts: Packaged juices found contaminated with bacteria due to poor hygiene in factory. Multiple consumers fell ill.

Evidence: Laboratory test reports, inspection records, victim testimonies.

Court Findings: Negligence in production, failure to maintain hygiene.

Outcome: 3 years imprisonment for responsible officers; company fined Rs 750,000; compensation to victims.

Observations: Reinforced criminal liability for food safety violations causing actual harm.

3. Key Observations

Types of Liability

Intentional adulteration → heavier sentences, fines, and compensation.

Negligent practices → imprisonment or fines, depending on severity and harm caused.

Evidence Requirements

Laboratory testing of food samples.

Medical reports for victims.

Witness testimony and inspection records.

Supply chain tracing to establish responsibility.

Challenges

Enforcement: Small vendors often escape regulatory checks.

Compensation: Victims often struggle to receive full compensation.

Public awareness: Consumers sometimes unaware of food safety rights.

Judicial Trends

Courts are increasingly imposing both imprisonment and financial penalties.

Liability extends to manufacturers, distributors, and vendors.

Rehabilitation (medical treatment and compensation) is often included as part of sentencing.

4. Summary Table of Cases

Case	Year	Location	Offense	Sentence	Observations
Ramesh Food Pvt. Ltd.	2016	Kathmandu	Toxic biscuit	3 yrs + compensation	Corporate liability
Sita & Co.	2017	Biratnagar	Milk adulteration	2 yrs + fine	Small-scale vendor liable
Krishna Pastry House	2018	Lalitpur	Unsafe preservatives	1.5 yrs + fine	Routine inspections crucial
Himal Dairy	2019	Pokhara	Formalin in milk	4 yrs + fine	Severity for staple food
Shrestha Food Distributor	2020	Kathmandu	Adulterated spices	2 yrs + confiscation	Distributor liability
Pradhan Sweet Shop	2021	Bharatpur	Banned coloring	1 yr + fine	Awareness campaigns included
Nepal Agro Foods	2022	Dang	Bacterial contamination	3 yrs + fine	Hygiene negligence punished