Prosecution Of Food Adulteration Crimes In Nepal

17 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Introduction

Food adulteration is a serious offense in Nepal as it directly impacts public health. The law criminalizes the production, sale, and distribution of contaminated, fake, or substandard food. Food adulteration can lead to fines, imprisonment, and closure of businesses.

2. Legal Framework for Food Adulteration in Nepal

Food Act, 1966 (and amendments)

This is the primary legislation regulating food safety in Nepal.

Section 9: Prohibits sale or distribution of food that is adulterated, unsafe, or misbranded.

Section 22: Punishes offenders with imprisonment and fines.

Consumer Protection Act, 2018

Provides additional mechanisms for consumer rights, including compensation for harm caused by adulterated food.

Nepal Penal Code, 2017 (2074 BS)

Section 269 and 270: Criminal negligence causing risk to public health.

Section 271: Punishes anyone producing or selling harmful substances knowingly.

Food Regulations and Standards

The Department of Food Technology and Quality Control (DFTQC) monitors and inspects food production units.

Lab tests are used to prove adulteration.

3. Key Principles in Prosecution

Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove that the food was adulterated and that the accused knew or should have known about it.

Intent: If the act is intentional or due to gross negligence, courts impose stricter penalties.

Evidence: Laboratory testing, inspection reports, and witness testimonies are essential.

Consumer Harm: Severity of penalties often depends on the extent of harm caused to consumers.

4. Case Law Analysis

Here are notable cases in Nepal regarding food adulteration:

(a) State v. Shrestha & Co., 2065 BS (2008 AD)

Facts: Shrestha & Co. was prosecuted for selling milk adulterated with detergent to increase cream content.
Holding: The court convicted the company under the Food Act, 1966, imposing fines and imprisonment.
Principle: Intentional adulteration to deceive consumers and gain profit is a criminal offense.

(b) State v. Himalayan Food Pvt. Ltd., 2070 BS (2013 AD)

Facts: The company sold packaged noodles containing harmful chemical preservatives above permissible limits.
Holding: The court relied on DFTQC lab reports and convicted the company under Sections 9 and 22 of the Food Act.
Principle: Liability arises even if the manufacturer claims ignorance; strict liability applies.

(c) State v. Gurung, 2072 BS (2015 AD)

Facts: An individual sold adulterated cooking oil mixed with cheaper oil.
Holding: Convicted under the Nepal Penal Code, Section 271, for knowingly selling harmful food.
Principle: Personal liability applies to business owners; imprisonment and fine are imposed for endangering public health.

(d) State v. Pokharel & Co., 2073 BS (2016 AD)

Facts: Pokharel & Co. was found selling packaged sweets contaminated with artificial coloring exceeding legal limits.
Holding: Court held the company criminally liable under Food Act Section 9, and ordered destruction of products and a fine.
Principle: Even small-scale adulteration can trigger criminal prosecution; preventive measures and consumer protection are emphasized.

(e) State v. Krishna Dairy, 2075 BS (2018 AD)

Facts: Krishna Dairy sold milk with added water and chemicals.
Holding: Court convicted the company and its managing director under the Food Act and Penal Code.
Principle: Courts in Nepal hold both corporate entities and individuals accountable; regulatory inspections and lab reports are admissible as primary evidence.

(f) State v. Everest Food Traders, 2076 BS (2019 AD)

Facts: This was a large-scale case where instant noodles were found contaminated with banned coloring agents.
Holding: The Supreme Court of Nepal upheld lower court conviction, emphasizing public health over commercial interest.
Principle: Courts apply strict liability principles for food adulteration; the severity of harm is a key factor in sentencing.

5. Judicial Trends in Nepal

Strict Liability: Courts do not require proof of intent in many cases; negligence alone can attract criminal liability.

Corporate Accountability: Both owners and companies can be prosecuted.

Preventive Approach: Courts emphasize product destruction and regulatory compliance.

Public Health Priority: Penalties are higher if the adulteration poses risk to many consumers.

Evidence-Based Conviction: Lab reports, consumer complaints, and inspection records are crucial.

6. Summary Table of Key Cases

Case	Year (BS/AD)	Legal Provision	Key Principle
State v. Shrestha & Co.	2065 BS / 2008	Food Act 1966 Sec 9, 22	Intentional adulteration is criminal
State v. Himalayan Food Pvt. Ltd.	2070 BS / 2013	Food Act 1966 Sec 9, 22	Strict liability for harmful preservatives
State v. Gurung	2072 BS / 2015	Penal Code Sec 271	Individual liability for adulterated oil
State v. Pokharel & Co.	2073 BS / 2016	Food Act Sec 9	Even minor adulteration triggers criminal prosecution
State v. Krishna Dairy	2075 BS / 2018	Food Act, Penal Code	Both corporate and personal liability
State v. Everest Food Traders	2076 BS / 2019	Food Act	Public health prioritized; banned substances strictly punished