How PFA Act gets adulterated

The problem is compounded when the nominee disappears or dies. In that event, the trial cannot proceed against the other partners. A case in point is the one against the famous Kakke Da Hotel at Connaught Place. The PFA had filed a complaint for adulteration of spices nearly eight years ago.

“The owner had a nominee, whom we haven’t been able to trace. The nominee has been declared a proclaimed offender. But we can’t proceed against the owner, and the hotel continues to function as a popular eating place,” says Sharma. In the present cases of mustard oil adulteration filed by the PFA, Kanodia Oil Mills is one of the accused who appointed a nominee in 1994.

Under the provisions of the Act, a complaint is filed by the PFA department, and three samples are seized for testing. Of these, one is sent on the next working day to a public analyst at the PFA laboratory. The other two samples are kept with the Local Health Authority (also under the PFA department).

Under Section 13(2) of the Act, the accused has the right to get the samples tested at the Central Food Laboratory (there are four of them, at Ghaziabad, Calcutta, Pune and Mysore). It is at this time that the court calls for the other samples, and the proceedings are stayed until the report comes in. This leads to further delays in the trial.

The CFL report is the final authority. In fact, under Section 13(4) of the Act, the certificate issued by the CFL Director supercedes the report of the public analyst. If the report is in favour of the accused then he or she is discharged immediately.

But it is a long way from the CFL laboratory to the courtroom, and lawyers say that strange things happen to these reports in transit. A defence lawyer explains: “In many cases the reports are tampered with. The CFL report is binding and very accurate, but money changes hands at lower levels, and reports are altered.”

While the Act is stringent and goes after the manufacturer, it is often the suppliers and vendors who are harassed, although they are eventually discharged. Under Section 19 of the Act, if the accused claims warranty, then he has committed no offence. In the present mustard oil adulteration case, several manufacturers and traders have been summoned by the designated court.

Sharma says: “They will eventually show receipts of sale and be discharged. This is only logical. After all, if the oil they bought is adulterated, then it is not their fault.”

But, the matter may be prolonged by a manufacturer who says that the product is not his. In which case the trial will proceed against the vendor as well. Sharma cites the example of a five-year-old case where milk was found to be adulterated with urea. Nanak Milk denied that the milk supplied was theirs, and so the case proceeds against the sellers.

The accused also has the upperhand if the samples are destroyed in transit or get putrified. Many samples gather dust in cupboards, without any means of preservation. In the case of milk or paneer they get spoiled. Or bottles — which are sent by post to CFL — are easily broken. “At this time the accused is benefitted and the public analyst’s report is not believed as the right of the accused has been frustrated,” says Sharma.

The Central Government had set up a committee to review the PFA Act two years ago. Prosecutors who await the final report say this will give the PFA more teeth.