Food standard breach and partner liability: substandard ice cream was adulterated, but partners escaped without proof of business responsibility.

Ice cream with 5.95% milk fat fell below the 10% standard fixed in Appendix B of the Food Adulteration Rules and was therefore adulterated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The fact that buffalo milk naturally contains a lower fat content did not excuse non-compliance, because the prescribed standard could be achieved by ordinary preparation methods. The conviction of the firm's liable respondents was thus sustained. By contrast, partners could be held liable only on proof that they were in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of the business, and no such material existed against the other partners; their acquittal was confirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether ice cream containing 5.95% milk fat, as against the prescribed minimum of 10%, was adulterated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. (ii) Whether respondents 2 and 3, as partners of the firm, were liable for the offence.

Issue (i): Whether ice cream containing 5.95% milk fat, as against the prescribed minimum of 10%, was adulterated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

Analysis: Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 made the standards in Appendix B binding, and Paragraph A. 11.02.08 of Appendix B fixed a minimum of 10% milk fat for ice cream. The fact that buffalo milk itself contains a lower percentage of milk fat did not make compliance impossible, since the prescribed standard could be achieved by ordinary preparation methods such as reducing water content or adding cream. The article fell below the prescribed standard and was therefore adulterated within the meaning of the Act.

Conclusion: The ice cream was adulterated and respondents 1 and 4 were liable to conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Issue (ii): Whether respondents 2 and 3, as partners of the firm, were liable for the offence.

Analysis: Liability of partners required material showing that they were in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of the business of the firm. The record disclosed no such material against respondents 2 and 3.

Conclusion: The acquittal of respondents 2 and 3 was confirmed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the finding of acquittal was reversed for respondents 1 and 4, while the acquittal of respondents 2 and 3 was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Food sold below the minimum standard fixed by the applicable food rules is adulterated notwithstanding that the raw material used may itself contain a lower level of the relevant constituent, and partner liability requires proof of responsibility for the conduct of the firm's business.

---