Use of Artificial Yellow Food Coloring, Tartrazine, in Food Items Cannot be Penalized as an Offence of Adulteration: Supreme Court

In a recent order, the Supreme Court (SC) bench of Justice BV Nagarthna and Justice NK Singh ruled that the use of artificial yellow food coloring, tartrazine, in food items cannot be penalized as an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act, 1954. In this context, the two-judge bench stated that the appellant's conviction was erroneous because the use of tartrazine was permitted under PFA Rules, 1955. In this case, the appellant was convicted by the trial court on August 16, 2011, for the offence of food adulteration under Section 16 of the PFA Act. He was convicted for possessing 15 Kg of dal moong dhuli coated with the synthetic food color tartrazine which is yellow in color. The conviction was initiated based on sample testing done in the laboratory of 750 grams of dal moong dhuli. Holding the appellant guilty, the trial court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (modified from rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month) under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the PFA Act. The appellant approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the trial court’s order. The HC rejected the appeal and the appellant approached the Supreme Court. 

During the proceedings, learned counsel Ms. Prerna Robin who appeared for the appellant submitted that as per Rule 28 of the PFA Rules, 1955, tartrazine is a permissible food color. She added, “The Laboratory report also evidenced the fact that the sample of 750 grams of dal moong dhuli have a quoting of the synthetic food color tartrazine which is a permitted color.” Therefore, she submitted that the very invocation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules was erroneous, and consequently, the conviction and sentence are contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. She added, “...the appellant is aged about sixty years and out of three months, he has already spent one month and eight days in jail, which has caused great prejudice to him as the conviction was unjustified. That presently he is on bail.” After hearing the contentions, the bench said, “On a reading of the Rule, it is evident that the tartrazine Sunset yellow FCF which is yellow in color is a permitted synthetic food color, which could be applied to food. In the instant case, the sample of 750 grams of dal moong dhuli, which was tested in the laboratory also noted that synthetic food color of tartrazine was used on the said sample and consequently, in the total quantity of 15 kgs. which was found in the possession of the appellant for sale. Since Rule 29 permits the said food color, the conviction of the appellant under Section 16 is erroneous.”

The SC bench further said that the order of the HC sustaining the order of the First Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court convicting the appellant for the offences as mentioned earlier is set aside. Consequently, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside.