Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale
Section 272 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with adulteration of food or drink intended for sale. Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which m The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 272, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 274 Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 12
- Andhra Pradesh Excise Act s. 37
- Arunachal Pradesh Excise Act s. 40
- Gujarat Prohibition Act s. 78
- Karnataka Excise Act s. 37 Penalty for adulteration, etc., by licensed vendor or manufacturer 1[or any other person]1
- Karnataka Prohibition Act s. 70 Penalty for misconduct by licensed vendor or manufacturer
- Maharashtra Prohibition Act s. 78 Penalty for misconduct by licensed vendor or manufacturer
- Odisha Excise Act s. 58 Penalty for adulteration by licenced manufacturer or vender or his servant
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act s. 13 Report of public analyst
- Puducherry Excise Act s. 36
- Sikkim Excise Act s. 36
- Telangana Excise Act s. 73
- Tripura Excise Act s. 51 Penalty for adulteration by licensed manufacturer or vendor or his servant
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act or omission constitutes an offence under both the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code, the provisions of the FSSA have overriding effect over the IPC provisions by virtue of Section 89 of the FSSA. Therefore, prosecution should proceed only under the FSSA, specifically Section 59, and not under the IPC provisions. The FSSA being comprehensive legislation with exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions for dealing with food safety offences, including more stringent punishments and specialized procedures, is the appropriate and exclusive remedy for food adulteration and unsafe food violations.
On this section: Establishes offence of adulterating food to make it noxious with intention to sell; punishment up to 6 months imprisonment or 1000 rupees fine; requires intention as ingredient
-
Swami Achyutanand Tirth vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 provides a comprehensive legislative framework for food safety and standards, the effectiveness of this framework depends on rigorous implementation by Union and State authorities through coordinated enforcement mechanisms, adequate infrastructure, periodic surveys, public awareness, and stringent penalties. The State has a constitutional obligation under Article 21 to ensure the availability of safe and wholesome food, particularly to protect vulnerable populations like infants and children. The Court can issue directions to strengthen implementation of existing laws rather than creating new legal frameworks when the statutory regime is adequate but inadequately implemented.
On this section: The Court noted that while these sections relate to adulteration of food and drink, their applicability to violations of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 was sub judice in related criminal appeals. The Court observed that states like Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Odisha had amended Section 272 to enhance punishment to imprisonment for life.
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act or omission constitutes an offence of food adulteration or dealing with unsafe food, the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, specifically Section 59, will have overriding effect over Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code by virtue of Section 89 of the FSSA. Therefore, prosecution for such offences must proceed under the FSSA framework rather than under the IPC, and simultaneous prosecution under both statutes is not permissible. The FSSA provides a comprehensive and exhaustive legislative framework for food safety with more stringent penalties and procedural safeguards than the IPC, and was enacted specifically to consolidate and replace the multiplicity of food-related laws that existed prior to its enactment.
On this section: Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale - requires intention to sell adulterated food; Court distinguished this from FSSA Section 59 which does not require intention
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act of food adulteration or dealing with unsafe food constitutes an offence under both Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the provisions of the FSSA shall have overriding effect by virtue of Section 89 of the FSSA. Therefore, prosecution must proceed exclusively under the FSSA regime, and there cannot be simultaneous prosecution under both the IPC and FSSA. The FSSA being comprehensive, exhaustive legislation consolidating all food-related laws with more stringent punishments and procedural safeguards, the IPC provisions are excluded from application in food safety matters covered by the FSSA.
On this section: Establishes offence of adulteration with intention to sell, requiring intention as ingredient; punishment up to 6 months or fine up to Rs. 1000
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act or omission constitutes an offence of food adulteration under both Sections 272-273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, the provisions of the FSSA shall have overriding effect by virtue of Section 89 of FSSA. Consequently, there shall be no simultaneous prosecution under both statutes; the prosecution must proceed exclusively under the FSSA framework which provides more comprehensive and stringent provisions for dealing with unsafe food offences. The IPC provisions for food adulteration are superseded by the FSSA for all food safety matters covered by the FSSA.
On this section: Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale - establishes offence with maximum punishment of 6 months imprisonment or Rs. 1,000 fine
-
Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving mass harm and crimes against society at large, particularly those involving supply of poisonous substances with knowledge of their lethal nature in violation of complete prohibition policy of a State, courts should grant bail only in exceptional circumstances. The gravity of offence, number of casualties and injuries, impact on social fabric, criminal antecedents of the accused, likelihood of witness intimidation, and evidence of destruction of evidence are paramount considerations that may outweigh the consideration of pre-trial detention period. An accused's role as mere supplier does not exonerate from criminal conspiracy charges if materials establish participation in conspiracy to manufacture and distribute poisoned liquor with knowledge of its poisonous nature. Parity argument in bail cannot succeed when State has challenged another accused's bail before the same court.
On this section: Adulteration of drinks with poisonous substances
-
G. Srinivas Krishna vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once a chargesheet has been filed, a Special Leave Petition challenging the underlying criminal proceedings cannot be maintained without directly challenging the chargesheet itself. The appropriate forum and remedy for challenging a chargesheet is not the Supreme Court via SLP but the trial court or through criminal revision, and the Supreme Court will dispose of an SLP where the chargesheet is not directly challenged and no independent legal question survives.
On this section: Non-cognizable offence related to handling poisonous substances
-
Prabhat Pandey @ Mr. Prabhat Pandey vs The State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases where a vehicle is seized in connection with drunken driving but no liquor is recovered from the vehicle, the confiscating authority must record a positive finding on the applicability of Section 56 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 before passing any confiscation order. The confiscating authority must decide this issue as a preliminary matter before proceeding with confiscation. The reasonable time period for completing confiscation proceedings under Section 58 of the Act is three months. Provisional release of seized vehicles should be granted pending completion of confiscation proceedings in cases where the vehicle is not liable to be confiscated or where there is inordinate delay.
On this section: Adulteration of drugs or liquor
-
State vs Abhinav
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the prosecution fails to follow proper procedure in evidence collection, does not join independent witnesses, does not properly seal and preserve evidence, does not verify manufacturer licenses, and the scientific analysis is inconclusive regarding the percentage of the alleged prohibited substance, the accused is entitled to acquittal on the ground of insufficient evidence and benefit of doubt, even if some procedural violations are established. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural lapses combined with inconclusive evidence warrant acquittal.
On this section: Sale of adulterated food or drink; Court held that molasses does not fall within definition of 'food' or 'drink' and prosecution failed to prove this charge
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 272
What have the courts held on Section 272 of the Indian Penal Code?
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (21 Feb 2024) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Establishes offence of adulterating food to make it noxious with intention to sell; punishment up to 6 months imprisonment or 1000 rupees fine; requires intention as ingredient. Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 272 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 272, section 272 IPC, section 272 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 272 and 273 in bns and ipc 272 and 273. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (21 Feb 2024).
What should I read with Section 272 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
12 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 274 (Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 272 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 272 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 272, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.