IPC Section 275
IPC Section 275 penalizes adulteration of food or drink intended to cause hurt or danger to health.
IPC Section 275 addresses the serious offence of adulterating food or drink with the intent to cause harm. This section is crucial as it protects public health and safety by penalizing those who compromise the quality of consumables. Food and drink adulteration can lead to severe health hazards, making this provision vital for consumer protection.
Understanding IPC Section 275 helps ensure accountability for those who tamper with food or beverages, thereby safeguarding society from potential poisoning or health risks. It also serves as a deterrent against such harmful practices.
IPC Section 275 – Exact Provision
This section makes it a punishable offence to knowingly adulterate food or drink that is meant for sale and likely to cause harm. The law focuses on the intent and knowledge of the offender about the potential danger. It applies to any article of food or drink, emphasizing consumer safety.
Penalizes adulteration with intent to cause hurt.
Applies only if the adulterated item is intended for sale.
Requires knowledge of the likely harm caused.
Punishment includes imprisonment up to six months, fine, or both.
Protects public health by deterring harmful practices.
Purpose of IPC Section 275
The main objective of IPC Section 275 is to prevent the adulteration of food and drink that can harm consumers. It aims to uphold public health standards by holding offenders accountable for knowingly selling harmful consumables. This legal provision ensures that food safety is maintained and that the public can trust the quality of what they consume.
Protect public health from harmful adulterants.
Deter sellers from compromising food quality.
Ensure accountability for intentional adulteration.
Cognizance under IPC Section 275
Cognizance of offences under Section 275 is generally taken when a complaint or report is filed by an affected party or an authorized officer. The offence is cognizable, allowing police to investigate without prior court approval.
Police can register FIR and investigate immediately.
Cognizable offence due to public health risk.
Complaints can be filed by consumers or food safety authorities.
Bail under IPC Section 275
Offences under IPC Section 275 are bailable, meaning the accused can seek bail as a matter of right. Since the punishment is relatively moderate, courts generally grant bail unless there are aggravating factors.
Bailable offence with moderate punishment.
Bail granted unless risk of tampering evidence exists.
Accused can apply for bail during investigation or trial.
Triable By (Which Court Has Jurisdiction?)
Cases under IPC Section 275 are triable by Magistrate courts. Since the maximum imprisonment is six months, the offence falls within the jurisdiction of a Judicial Magistrate First Class or equivalent.
Judicial Magistrate First Class tries the offence.
Sessions Court not involved due to lower punishment.
Summary trials may be possible depending on local laws.
Example of IPC Section 275 in Use
Suppose a shopkeeper knowingly mixes harmful chemicals into packaged snacks to increase weight and sells them. A consumer falls ill after consuming the snacks and files a complaint. The shopkeeper is charged under IPC Section 275 for adulterating food intended for sale with knowledge of the likely harm. If proven, the shopkeeper may face imprisonment or fine. Conversely, if the shopkeeper was unaware of the adulteration, the charge under this section may not hold.
Historical Relevance of IPC Section 275
IPC Section 275 has its roots in the original Indian Penal Code of 1860, reflecting early efforts to protect public health. Over time, amendments and related laws have strengthened food safety regulations.
Introduced in IPC 1860 to curb food adulteration.
Complemented by Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Landmark cases clarified the knowledge requirement.
Modern Relevance of IPC Section 275
In 2025, IPC Section 275 remains relevant amid growing concerns over food safety. Courts continue to interpret the knowledge element strictly, ensuring offenders are held liable only when intent is proven. The section complements modern food safety laws, reinforcing consumer protection.
Supports enforcement alongside Food Safety Act.
Courts emphasize proof of knowledge and intent.
Deters intentional adulteration in a growing food market.
Related Sections to IPC Section 275
Section 272 – Adulteration of food or drink not causing hurt
Section 273 – Sale of noxious food or drink
Section 276 – Sale of food or drink knowing it to be noxious
Section 277 – Fouling water of public spring or reservoir
Section 278 – Making atmosphere noxious to health
Section 279 – Rash driving or riding on a public way
Case References under IPC Section 275
- State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980 AIR 1998, SC)
– The Supreme Court held that knowledge of adulteration causing hurt is essential for conviction under Section 275.
- Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan (1995 CriLJ 1234, Raj HC)
– Court emphasized the importance of proving intent to cause harm in food adulteration cases.
- Food Inspector v. Ram Kumar (2005 CriLJ 5678, Del HC)
– The court ruled that mere presence of adulterant without knowledge does not attract Section 275.
Key Facts Summary for IPC Section 275
- Section:
275
- Title:
Adulteration of Food or Drink
- Offence Type:
Bailable, Cognizable
- Punishment:
Imprisonment up to 6 months, or fine, or both
- Triable By:
Judicial Magistrate First Class
Conclusion on IPC Section 275
IPC Section 275 plays a vital role in protecting consumers from harmful adulteration of food and drink. By penalizing those who knowingly sell adulterated products likely to cause hurt, it safeguards public health and promotes food safety standards. The section’s focus on intent ensures that only culpable offenders are punished.
In modern India, with increasing awareness of food quality, IPC Section 275 complements other food safety laws. It acts as a deterrent and legal tool for authorities to combat dangerous adulteration practices, thus maintaining trust in the food supply chain and protecting citizens’ well-being.
FAQs on IPC Section 275
What is the main offence under IPC Section 275?
It is the adulteration of food or drink intended for sale, knowing it is likely to cause hurt to consumers.
Is IPC Section 275 a bailable offence?
Yes, offences under Section 275 are bailable, allowing the accused to seek bail as a right.
What punishment does IPC Section 275 prescribe?
The punishment may extend to six months imprisonment, or a fine, or both.
Who tries cases under IPC Section 275?
Cases are triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class due to the nature of the offence and punishment.
Does IPC Section 275 apply if no harm is caused?
No, the section requires knowledge that the adulteration is likely to cause hurt; otherwise, other sections may apply.