Sarjoo Prasad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

The Supreme Court said the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 creates strict liability. If a shop sells adulterated food, both the owner and the servant who sells it can be punished, even without mens rea. The aim is to protect public health. The Court upheld the conviction but, for special reasons, reduced the sentence to three months and removed the fine.

• Can a servant be held liable for selling adulterated food without mens rea?
• Can courts reduce the minimum punishment for a second offence for special and adequate reasons?
• Does lack of personal benefit or knowledge exempt a servant from liability?

• Section 7 (PFA): No person—employer or servant—may sell adulterated food.
• Section 16(1) (PFA): Penalties apply regardless of knowledge or intent.
• Public health focus: The prohibition is absolute to keep unsafe food out of the market.

• Conviction upheld: Both employers and employees are liable under Section 7; mens rea not required.
• No exemption for illiteracy, lack of knowledge, or lack of profit; prohibition is absolute.
• Sentence reduced: For special and adequate reasons, imprisonment cut to three months and the fine waived.

The PFA Act establishes a strict liability regime. Anyone involved in the sale of adulterated food—owner or servant—is liable, irrespective of intent. Courts may moderate punishment below the minimum for a repeat offence when special and adequate reasons exist.

• Strengthens consumer protection and food safety.
• Clarifies servant liability under public welfare statutes.
• Confirms scope for sentencing discretion in hard cases.
• Guides prosecutions under strict liability provisions.

Mnemonic: S-A-F-E → Strict liability, All who sell, Food health first, Exception for sentencing.

1. Strict: No mens rea needed.
2. All: Owner and servant are liable.
3. Food: Public health drives the rule.
4. Exception: Reduce minimum if special reasons exist.

Issue: Liability of a servant under PFA without mens rea; scope for reducing minimum sentence on second offence.

Rule: Section 7 forbids sale of adulterated food by any person; Section 16(1) penalises regardless of intent; public health priority.

Application: Servant sold adulterated mustard oil; intent irrelevant; yet court noted special reasons to soften punishment.

Conclusion: Conviction affirmed; sentence reduced to three months; fine waived.

PFA Act, 1954

Law to prevent sale of unsafe/adulterated food.

Strict Liability

Offence made out without proving intent.

Mens rea

Guilty mind; not required under Sections 7 & 16(1).

• Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram — food adulteration and sample handling.
• Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange — misbranding and public welfare offences.
• Nathulal v. State of M.P. — mens rea discussion in regulatory offences.