 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No.264 Chapter - VI Incoherency in Laws 6.1 The Law Commission reviewed sections 272 and 273 of IPC to address the concern of the Supreme Court in matters relating to food adulteration. It also revisited the punishment with reference to sections 272 and 273 of IPC stipulated for food adulteration, which is not only inadequate but also incompatible in the present scenario, and thus requires to be made more stringent. The Law Commission considers that the provisions to deal with production and sale of adulterated food, which is harmful to human beings be made more stringent keeping in view the gravity of offence, the existing maximum punishment of six months for such offences under the IPC is grossly inadequate. 6.2 In view of above, the Law Commission is of the opinion that the punishment essentially be graded with reference to the harm caused to the consumer due to consumption of adulterated food and drinks. Therefore, it is recommendable that the provisions contained in sections 272 and 273 of the IPC may be suitably modified on the lines of the provisions of the Food Act for the reasons discussed hereinabove. 6.3 While considering the amendments to sections 272 and 273 of the IPC, the Law Commission considered imbibing compensation aspect into the provisions taking into account various elements that constitutes the seriousness of the offence and harm caused to the persons upon consumption of the adulterated foods. In this regard, the Commission considered provisions of sections 357, 357A and 357B of Cr.P.C. which deal with compensation in general and in specific cases. Section 357 makes a general provision for compensation applicable to all cases other than those provided in sections 357A & 357B. Section 357 reads as under:-    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back