- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 274: Adulteration of Food or Drink Intended for Sale
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 274: Adulteration of Food or Drink Intended for Sale
Introduction
Section 274 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with the adulteration of food or drink intended for sale.
The offence is not committed merely because food or drink has been adulterated. The adulteration must be of such a nature that the article becomes noxious as food or drink, and the accused must either:
- Intend to sell the adulterated article as food or drink; or
- Know that it is likely to be sold as food or drink.
The section therefore targets the actual adulteration stage, while the following Section 275 deals with the sale, offer, or exposure for sale of noxious food or drink.
Basic Formula
Food/drink + adulteration by accused + rendered noxious + intention/knowledge of likely sale = Section 274
Q1. What does Section 274 provide?
Answer:
Section 274 punishes whoever adulterates any article of food or drink:
- So as to make it noxious as food or drink; and
- Intends to sell it as food or drink; or
- Knows it to be likely that it will be sold as food or drink.
The punishment is:
- Imprisonment of either description up to six months; or
- Fine up to ₹5,000; or
- Both.
Q2. What is the object of Section 274?
Answer:
The object is to protect public health by preventing food and drink from being deliberately altered in a manner that makes them harmful for consumption.
The provision intervenes before the adulterated article is necessarily sold.
It therefore operates at the stage of:
Making the food or drink unsafe
rather than merely at the stage of sale.
Q3. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 274 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 274 BNS → Section 272 IPC
The language remains unchanged.
The principal BNS change is the increase in fine.
Q4. What change has been made to the punishment?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Fine under IPC Section 272
Up to ₹1,000
Fine under Section 274 BNS
Up to ₹5,000
The imprisonment term remains up to six months.
Memory
₹1,000 → ₹5,000
Q5. What is the literal meaning of “adulteration”?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, adulteration refers to deliberately lowering the quality of a substance by:
- Adding inferior substances;
- Adding harmful substances; or
- Removing valuable components.
This may be done to:
- Increase quantity;
- Reduce cost;
- Increase profit.
However, such conduct may compromise:
- Safety;
- Purity;
- Quality;
- Standard.
Q6. Does every act of adulteration amount to an offence under Section 274?
Answer:
No.
This is one of the most important points.
The supplied comments expressly state that:
Mere adulteration is not enough.
The adulteration must be such that the article is rendered:
Noxious as food or drink
Exam Rule
Adulteration alone ≠ Section 274
Q7. What does “noxious as food or drink” mean?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, “noxious as food” refers to the detrimental or injurious nature of the food.
In simple terms, the adulteration must make the food or drink:
- Harmful;
- Injurious to health;
- Unsafe for consumption.
Memory
Noxious = harmful to health
Q8. What are the essential ingredients of Section 274?
Answer:
The supplied comments identify four ingredients:
1. The article must be:
o Food; or
o Drink.
2. It must have been adulterated by the accused.
3. The adulteration must have rendered it noxious as food or drink.
4. The accused must have adulterated it:
o Intending to sell it as food or drink; or
o Knowing it to be likely that it would be sold as food or drink.
Formula
FOOD/DRINK + ADULTERATION + NOXIOUSNESS + INTENTION/KNOWLEDGE OF SALE = SECTION 274
Q9. Must the article be food or drink?
Answer:
Yes.
The section specifically applies to:
- Any article of food; or
- Any article of drink.
This subject-matter requirement is essential.
Q10. Must the accused personally adulterate the article?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 274 focuses on the person who adulterates the food or drink.
This distinguishes it from Section 275, which focuses on the person who sells, offers or exposes noxious food or drink.
Memory
274 = MAKE BAD FOOD
275 = SELL BAD FOOD
Q11. What if the accused only sells food already adulterated by someone else?
Answer:
That would not, by itself, satisfy Section 274 because the section requires adulteration by the accused.
However, if the seller knows or has reason to believe that the food is noxious and sells or offers it, Section 275 may become relevant.
Q12. Must the adulteration make the article completely poisonous?
Answer:
No.
The statutory requirement is that the article becomes noxious as food or drink.
This means harmful or injurious to health.
It need not necessarily become deadly.
Q13. What if the adulteration merely reduces quality but does not make the article harmful?
Answer:
Then Section 274 is not automatically established.
The supplied comments make clear that the adulteration must render the article noxious.
Exam Point
Poor quality alone ≠ necessarily noxious
Q14. What if adulteration makes the food less tasty but not harmful?
Answer:
That would not by itself satisfy the supplied requirement of noxiousness.
The key question is whether the adulteration makes the article harmful or injurious as food or drink.
Q15. What if adulteration affects religious sentiments but not health?
Answer:
The supplied comments provide an important example.
If pig’s fat is mixed with ghee and the resulting product is sold, the adulteration may offend the religious sentiments of a section of the public.
However, if the mixture does not make the article harmful to health, it would not necessarily make the ghee “noxious as food” for the purposes of Section 274.
Important Principle
Religiously objectionable ≠ automatically noxious as food
Q16. Why is the pig-fat and ghee example important?
Answer:
It demonstrates that Section 274 is concerned with health-related harmfulness, not every form of impurity, deception, or social objection.
The question is not merely:
Was the food adulterated?
The correct question is:
Did the adulteration make the food injurious or noxious as food?
Q17. What is the mental element under Section 274?
Answer:
The accused must either:
Intend
that the adulterated article be sold as food or drink;
or
Know it to be likely
that it will be sold as food or drink.
Mental Element Formula
INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELY SALE
Q18. Must the accused intend to injure consumers?
Answer:
No.
The section does not expressly require an intention to:
- Cause hurt;
- Cause illness;
- Poison;
- Kill.
The required intention concerns the sale of the adulterated article as food or drink.
Q19. Is knowledge of likely sale sufficient?
Answer:
Yes.
The section provides two alternatives:
- Intention to sell; or
- Knowledge that sale is likely.
Actual intention to personally sell is not necessary where the accused knows that sale is likely.
Q20. Must the accused personally sell the adulterated article?
Answer:
No.
The accused may adulterate the food and know that another person is likely to sell it.
Section 274 can still apply if the required ingredients are present.
Exam Point
Actual seller and adulterator need not be the same person.
Q21. Must an actual sale occur?
Answer:
No.
Section 274 may be complete at the adulteration stage if:
- The food or drink has been rendered noxious; and
- The accused intends or knows it is likely to be sold as food or drink.
Memory
274 operates before sale
Q22. Must anyone actually consume the adulterated food?
Answer:
No.
Actual consumption is not an express requirement.
The offence is preventive.
Q23. Must anyone actually fall ill?
Answer:
No.
Actual illness is not necessary.
The law focuses on the creation of noxious food or drink intended or likely for sale.
Q24. Must actual injury occur?
Answer:
No.
The offence may be established without proof that anyone suffered actual injury.
Q25. Why is Section 274 preventive in nature?
Answer:
Because it criminalises dangerous adulteration before the product necessarily reaches a consumer.
The sequence may be:
Adulteration → intended sale
Liability can arise before:
- Purchase;
- Consumption;
- Illness;
- Injury.
Q26. Give a simple example of Section 274.
Answer:
A deliberately mixes a harmful substance into milk, making it unsafe to drink, intending to sell the milk to customers.
Section 274 may apply.
Q27. Give an example involving knowledge rather than intention.
Answer:
A adulterates a food product and knows that it is likely to be sent to a shop and sold as normal food.
Even if A does not personally intend to conduct the sale, knowledge that such sale is likely may satisfy the mental element.
Q28. Give an example where Section 274 would not necessarily apply.
Answer:
A alters a food product in a way that reduces its commercial quality but does not make it harmful or injurious to health.
If the article is not rendered noxious, the statutory requirement is not satisfied merely because adulteration occurred.
Q29. Does adding an inferior substance automatically satisfy Section 274?
Answer:
No.
Adding an inferior substance may amount to adulteration in the ordinary sense.
But for Section 274, the result must be that the article becomes:
Noxious as food or drink
Q30. Does removing a valuable ingredient automatically satisfy Section 274?
Answer:
No.
Removing a valuable component may amount to adulteration in the general sense.
However, Section 274 additionally requires that the alteration make the article noxious as food or drink.
Q31. Is adulteration for profit relevant?
Answer:
The supplied explanation notes that adulteration is often done to:
- Increase quantity;
- Reduce cost.
However, profit motive is not expressly stated as an ingredient of Section 274.
The statutory focus is on:
- Adulteration;
- Noxiousness;
- Intention or knowledge concerning sale.
Q32. Must there be deception of a particular buyer?
Answer:
No.
The section does not require proof that a particular buyer was deceived.
It is enough that the accused adulterates the food or drink in the prohibited manner with the required intention or knowledge of sale.
Q33. What must the prosecution prove about causation?
Answer:
It must establish that the accused’s adulteration caused the article to become noxious as food or drink.
Causal Sequence
Accused adulterates → article becomes noxious
Q34. What must be proved regarding the condition of the food?
Answer:
It must be shown that the adulterated article became harmful or injurious as food or drink.
The prosecution cannot rely merely upon the fact that the article was not pure.
Q35. What must be proved regarding future sale?
Answer:
It must be established that the accused:
- Intended the adulterated article to be sold; or
- Knew it was likely to be sold
as food or drink.
Q36. Is mere possession of adulterated food enough?
Answer:
No.
Mere possession does not satisfy the wording of Section 274.
The accused must have adulterated the article and possessed the required intention or knowledge relating to sale.
Q37. Is mere knowledge that someone else adulterated food enough?
Answer:
No, not for Section 274.
This provision focuses on the act of adulteration itself.
However, knowingly selling noxious food may raise Section 275.
Q38. What is the punishment under Section 274?
Answer:
The punishment is:
- Imprisonment of either description up to six months; or
- Fine up to ₹5,000; or
- Both.
Punishment Formula
6 months / ₹5,000 / both
Q39. What does “imprisonment of either description” mean?
Answer:
It means imprisonment may be:
- Simple; or
- Rigorous.
The maximum term is six months.
Q40. What is the classification of Section 274?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, Section 274 is:
- Non-cognizable
- Bailable
- Triable by any Magistrate
Classification Formula
Non-cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate
Q41. What is the principal BNS change from IPC Section 272?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
- The language remains unchanged.
- The maximum fine has increased from ₹1,000 to ₹5,000.
Memory
₹1,000 → ₹5,000
Q42. How does Section 274 differ from Section 275?
Answer:
This is the most important comparison.
Section 274 — Adulteration of Food or Drink
The accused actually adulterates the article.
The adulteration makes it noxious.
The accused intends or knows it is likely to be sold.
Memory
274 = MAKE BAD FOOD
Section 275 — Sale of Noxious Food or Drink
The article is already noxious or unfit.
The accused:
- Sells;
- Offers; or
- Exposes it for sale,
knowing or having reason to believe that it is noxious.
Memory
275 = SELL BAD FOOD
Q43. Can the adulterator and seller be different persons?
Answer:
Yes.
For example:
- A adulterates food and makes it noxious, intending it for sale.
- B later knowingly sells it.
Depending on the facts:
- A may fall under Section 274;
- B may fall under Section 275.
Q44. Can the same person potentially fall under both Sections 274 and 275?
Answer:
Potentially yes.
If a person:
1. Adulterates food so that it becomes noxious with the required intention; and
2. Later knowingly sells the same noxious food,
the conduct may engage both stages.
Each section must still be examined separately according to its ingredients.
Q45. What is the easiest way to distinguish Sections 274 and 275?
Answer:
Ask:
Who made the food noxious?
Think:
Section 274
Who sold the noxious food?
Think:
Section 275
Memory Formula
274 = MAKE
275 = SELL
Q46. How does Section 274 differ from Section 276?
Answer:
Section 274
Deals with adulteration of:
Food or drink
Section 276
Deals with adulteration of:
Drug or medical preparation
Memory
274 = FOOD ADULTERATION
276 = DRUG ADULTERATION
Q47. What is an important difference in the harmful effect required under Sections 274 and 276?
Answer:
Section 274
The adulteration must make food or drink:
Noxious
Section 276
The adulteration of a drug may:
- Lessen efficacy;
- Change operation; or
- Make it noxious.
Therefore, Section 276 expressly covers a wider range of adverse medicinal effects.
Q48. What is the easiest four-section sequence from Sections 274–277?
Answer:
274 — MAKE BAD FOOD
Adulterate food or drink and make it noxious.
275 — SELL BAD FOOD
Sell or offer noxious/unfit food or drink.
276 — MAKE BAD MEDICINE
Adulterate a drug.
277 — SELL BAD MEDICINE
Knowingly deal with an adulterated drug.
Memory
MAKE FOOD → SELL FOOD → MAKE MEDICINE → SELL MEDICINE
Q49. What are the most important statutory words to remember?
Answer:
Remember:
- Adulterates
- Article of food or drink
- Noxious
- Intending to sell
- Knowing it to be likely
- Sold as food or drink
These words form the core of Section 274.
Q50. What is the central principle of Section 274?
Answer:
A person must not adulterate food or drink in such a way as to make it harmful and then intend, or knowingly permit the likelihood, that it will enter the market as food or drink.
Simple Principle
Do not make unsafe food for sale.
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Subject Matter
Section 274 applies to:
Food
or
Drink
2. Prohibited Act
The accused must:
Adulterate
the article.
3. Required Effect
The adulteration must render the article:
Noxious as food or drink
Mere adulteration is not enough.
4. Mental Element
The accused must either:
Intend
that the article be sold;
or
Know it to be likely
that it will be sold.
5. Actual Sale
Actual sale is not necessary.
The offence may be complete before the sale occurs.
6. Actual Harm
The section does not expressly require:
- Actual purchase;
- Actual consumption;
- Actual illness;
- Actual injury;
- Actual death.
Sections 274 and 275 — Note-Form Comparison
Section 274 — Adulteration of Food or Drink
Stage
Preparation/adulteration stage.
Act
Adulterates the food or drink.
Result
Makes it noxious.
Mental Element
Intention or knowledge of likely sale.
Actual Sale Required?
No.
Memory
MAKE BAD FOOD
Section 275 — Sale of Noxious Food or Drink
Stage
Sale/marketing stage.
Act
Sells, offers or exposes for sale.
Condition
Food/drink is noxious or unfit.
Mental Element
Knowledge or reason to believe.
Memory
SELL BAD FOOD
Sections 274–278: Rapid Food and Drug Sequence
274 — Food Adulteration
Make food noxious
275 — Noxious Food Sale
Sell bad food
276 — Drug Adulteration
Make bad medicine
277 — Sale of Adulterated Drug
Sell bad medicine
278 — Wrong Drug
Sell one medicine as another
Memory Chain
MAKE FOOD → SELL FOOD → MAKE DRUG → SELL DRUG → SUBSTITUTE DRUG
IPC Equivalent and BNS Change
IPC Equivalent
Section 274 BNS = Section 272 IPC
Language
According to the supplied comments:
Unchanged
Fine
₹1,000 → ₹5,000
Punishment Study Note
Imprisonment
Either description up to 6 months
Fine
Up to ₹5,000
Alternative
Both may be imposed.
Classification Study Note
Section 274 is:
Non-cognizable
Bailable
Any Magistrate
Quick Revision Notes
Section
274 BNS
Title
Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale
IPC Equivalent
272 IPC
Subject
Food / drink
Act
Adulteration
Required Result
Noxious as food or drink
Mental Element
Intention to sell or knowledge of likely sale
Mere Adulteration Enough?
No
Actual Sale Required?
No
Actual Injury Required?
No
Punishment
Up to 6 months / ₹5,000 / both
Classification
Non-cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate
BNS Change
Fine increased:
₹1,000 → ₹5,000
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Assuming every adulteration is punishable under Section 274
Incorrect.
The adulteration must render the article noxious.
Trap 2 — Confusing impurity with harmfulness
An article may be impure without necessarily being noxious to health.
Trap 3 — Treating religious objection as noxiousness
Incorrect.
The supplied example of pig’s fat mixed with ghee shows that something may offend religious sentiments without necessarily being noxious as food.
Trap 4 — Assuming actual sale is necessary
Incorrect.
Intention or knowledge of likely sale is enough.
Trap 5 — Assuming actual illness is required
Incorrect.
The offence may be complete before anyone consumes the article.
Trap 6 — Confusing Section 274 with Section 275
274 = adulterate
275 = sell
Trap 7 — Confusing food adulteration with drug adulteration
274 = food/drink
276 = drugs/medical preparations
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 274
FOOD / DRINK
+
ADULTERATION BY ACCUSED
+
RENDERED NOXIOUS
+
INTENTION TO SELL / KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELY SALE
=
ADULTERATION OF FOOD OR DRINK INTENDED FOR SALE
Eighteen-Section Memory Chain
274 = ADULTERATE FOOD
275 = SELL BAD FOOD
276 = ADULTERATE DRUG
277 = SELL ADULTERATED DRUG
278 = WRONG DRUG
279 = WATER
280 = AIR
281 = ROAD
282 = NAVIGATION
283 = FALSE SIGNAL
284 = UNSAFE VESSEL
285 = WAY OBSTRUCTION
286 = POISON
287 = FIRE
288 = EXPLOSIVE
289 = MACHINE
290 = BUILDING
291 = ANIMAL
Rapid Sequence
ADULTERATE FOOD → SELL BAD FOOD → ADULTERATE DRUG → SELL BAD DRUG → WRONG DRUG → WATER → AIR → ROAD → NAVIGATION → SIGNAL → VESSEL → WAY → POISON → FIRE → EXPLOSIVE → MACHINE → BUILDING → ANIMAL
Key Takeaway
Section 274 BNS punishes a person who adulterates food or drink in such a manner that it becomes noxious as food or drink, while intending that it be sold or knowing that such sale is likely.
The most important principle is:
MERE ADULTERATION IS NOT ENOUGH
The adulteration must make the article harmful or injurious as food or drink.
The most useful distinction is:
274 = MAKE BAD FOOD
275 = SELL BAD FOOD
Section 274 corresponds to Section 272 IPC, and according to the supplied comments the language remains unchanged, while the maximum fine has increased:
₹1,000 → ₹5,000
Rapid Revision
274 = FOOD/DRINK + ADULTERATION + NOXIOUSNESS + INTENTION/KNOWLEDGE OF SALE
Punishment = Up to 6 months / ₹5,000 / both
Classification = Non-cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate
