- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 275: Sale of Noxious Food or Drink
Introduction
Section 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) punishes the sale, offer for sale, or exposure for sale of any article as food or drink where that article:
- Has been rendered noxious;
- Has become noxious; or
- Is otherwise in a state unfit for food or drink,
and the accused either:
- Knows; or
- Has reason to believe
that the article is noxious as food or drink.
The section therefore protects public health by preventing unsafe or unfit food and drink from being placed in the market.
Basic Formula
Noxious/unfit food or drink + sale/offer/exposure + knowledge or reason to believe = Section 275
Q1. What does Section 275 provide?
Answer:
Section 275 punishes whoever:
- Sells;
- Offers for sale; or
- Exposes for sale,
as food or drink, any article which:
- Has been rendered noxious;
- Has become noxious; or
- Is in a state unfit for food or drink,
while:
- Knowing; or
- Having reason to believe
that the article is noxious 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 275?
Answer:
The object is to protect consumers and the public from unsafe food and drink.
The law prevents a person from knowingly or culpably placing into the market food or drink that is:
- Harmful;
- Contaminated;
- Spoiled;
- Unsafe;
- Otherwise unfit for consumption.
The provision therefore serves an important public-health function.
Q3. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 275 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 275 BNS → Section 273 IPC
The language remains unchanged.
The principal BNS change concerns the amount of fine.
Q4. What change has been made to the fine?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Under IPC Section 273
Maximum fine = ₹1,000
Under BNS Section 275
Maximum fine = ₹5,000
Memory Formula
₹1,000 → ₹5,000
Q5. What are the essential ingredients of Section 275?
Answer:
The prosecution must broadly establish:
1. There was an article represented or dealt with as:
o Food; or
o Drink.
2. The article:
o Had been rendered noxious; or
o Had become noxious; or
o Was unfit for food or drink.
3. The accused:
o Sold it;
o Offered it for sale; or
o Exposed it for sale.
4. The accused:
o Knew; or
o Had reason to believe
that the article was noxious as food or drink.
Formula
FOOD/DRINK + NOXIOUS/UNFIT + SALE/OFFER/EXPOSURE + KNOWLEDGE/REASON TO BELIEVE = SECTION 275
Q6. What kinds of articles are covered?
Answer:
The provision applies to any article sold, offered or exposed:
- As food; or
- As drink.
The wording is broad.
It is not confined to any particular type of food product or beverage.
Q7. What does “rendered noxious” mean?
Answer:
It means that the article has been made harmful or dangerous for consumption because of some change, contamination, treatment or deterioration.
Simple Meaning
Rendered noxious = made harmful
Q8. What does “has become noxious” mean?
Answer:
It refers to an article which may originally have been fit for consumption but later became harmful.
For example, food may deteriorate through:
- Spoilage;
- Contamination;
- Decomposition;
- Improper storage.
Memory
Rendered noxious = made harmful
Became noxious = turned harmful
Q9. What does “unfit for food or drink” mean?
Answer:
It means that the article is no longer suitable or safe for human consumption as food or drink.
The article does not necessarily need to be immediately lethal.
It is enough that its condition makes it unfit for consumption.
Q10. Is “noxious” the same as “unfit”?
Answer:
They are related but the statutory wording uses both concepts.
An article may be:
- Noxious because it is harmful; or
- Unfit for food or drink because its condition makes it unsuitable for consumption.
Exam Point
Do not unnecessarily narrow the provision only to poisonous food.
Q11. Must the article be poisonous?
Answer:
No.
The section is broader than poisoning.
The article may be:
- Harmful;
- Spoiled;
- Contaminated;
- Unsafe;
- Otherwise unfit for food or drink.
Q12. Must the accused personally make the food noxious?
Answer:
No.
Section 275 does not require the seller to be the person who caused the food or drink to become harmful.
It is enough that:
- The article is noxious or unfit;
- The accused knows or has reason to believe this; and
- The accused sells, offers or exposes it for sale.
Exam Point
Seller and person causing deterioration need not be the same person.
Q13. What acts are prohibited under Section 275?
Answer:
The provision covers:
- Selling;
- Offering for sale;
- Exposing for sale.
Memory Formula
SELL – OFFER – EXPOSE
Q14. Must there be a completed sale?
Answer:
No.
The section expressly includes:
- Offering for sale; and
- Exposing for sale.
Therefore, liability may arise before a consumer actually buys the food or drink.
Q15. What does “offers for sale” mean?
Answer:
It refers to presenting the noxious or unfit article as available for purchase.
A completed transaction is not necessary.
Q16. What does “exposes for sale” mean?
Answer:
It broadly refers to displaying or presenting the article for sale.
For example, unsafe food placed on a shop counter for purchase may potentially fall within this branch.
Q17. Must the article actually be represented as food or drink?
Answer:
Yes.
The wording states that the article must be sold, offered or exposed:
“as food or drink.”
That connection is essential.
Q18. What is the mental element under Section 275?
Answer:
The accused must either:
Know
that the article is noxious as food or drink;
or
Have reason to believe
that it is noxious.
Mental Element Formula
KNOWLEDGE OR REASON TO BELIEVE
Q19. Why is “reason to believe” important?
Answer:
Because the prosecution does not necessarily have to prove direct actual knowledge in every case.
The section also covers circumstances where the accused has sufficient basis to believe that the article is noxious.
Memory
275 = KNOW OR HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE
Q20. Is mere innocence enough to avoid liability?
Answer:
If the accused genuinely neither knew nor had reason to believe that the article was noxious, the specified mental element may be absent.
The prosecution must establish one of the two statutory states of mind.
Q21. Is mere negligence automatically sufficient?
Answer:
Not automatically.
The statutory wording requires:
- Knowledge; or
- Reason to believe.
Therefore, the relevant question is whether the facts were such that the accused had reason to believe the food or drink was noxious.
Q22. Must the accused intend to poison anyone?
Answer:
No.
There is no requirement of a specific intention to:
- Injure;
- Poison;
- Kill;
- Cause illness.
The mental element is knowledge or reason to believe regarding the noxious condition of the food or drink.
Q23. Must anyone actually eat or drink the article?
Answer:
No.
Actual consumption is not necessary because:
- Offer for sale; and
- Exposure for sale
are themselves covered.
Q24. Must anyone actually become ill?
Answer:
No.
Actual illness is not an ingredient in the supplied wording.
The offence is preventive in nature.
Q25. Must actual injury occur?
Answer:
No.
The law targets the marketing of unsafe food or drink before physical injury necessarily occurs.
Q26. Why is Section 275 preventive in nature?
Answer:
Because the offence may be complete before:
- Purchase;
- Consumption;
- Illness;
- Injury.
The law seeks to prevent noxious food or drink from reaching consumers in the first place.
Q27. Give a simple example involving spoiled food.
Answer:
A knows that meat has spoiled and become unfit for consumption but nevertheless displays it for sale as normal food.
Section 275 may apply.
Q28. Give an example involving contaminated drink.
Answer:
A knows that a beverage has become contaminated and harmful but still offers it for sale.
That may fall within Section 275.
Q29. Give an example involving reason to believe.
Answer:
Suppose food has obvious signs of severe spoilage and has been improperly stored for a long period.
If the seller nevertheless exposes it for sale, the surrounding circumstances may become relevant to whether the seller had reason to believe it was noxious.
Q30. What if the seller genuinely does not know the article is spoiled?
Answer:
The court would still consider whether the seller had reason to believe it was noxious.
If neither knowledge nor reason to believe is proved, the specific requirements of Section 275 would not be established.
Q31. What if the food is unpleasant but still safe to consume?
Answer:
Mere unpleasantness does not automatically establish the offence.
The article must be:
- Noxious; or
- In a state unfit for food or drink.
Exam Point
Unappealing ≠ automatically noxious
Q32. What if the food has passed its best quality but is not noxious or unfit?
Answer:
Section 275 is not triggered simply because an article is of poor quality.
The statutory requirement remains that it is:
- Noxious; or
- Unfit for food or drink,
together with the required mental element.
Q33. What must the prosecution prove about the condition of the article?
Answer:
It must establish that the article:
- Had been rendered noxious;
- Had become noxious; or
- Was in a state unfit for food or drink.
Q34. What must the prosecution prove about the accused’s conduct?
Answer:
It must show that the accused:
- Sold;
- Offered; or
- Exposed
the article for sale as food or drink.
Q35. What must be proved regarding the accused’s state of mind?
Answer:
The prosecution must prove:
- Knowledge; or
- Reason to believe
that the article was noxious as food or drink.
Q36. Is mere possession of noxious food enough?
Answer:
No.
The section requires one of the specified commercial acts:
- Sale;
- Offer for sale;
- Exposure for sale.
Mere possession is not expressly included.
Q37. Is mere preparation of noxious food enough under Section 275?
Answer:
Not by itself.
Section 275 focuses on sale-related conduct.
If the issue concerns the actual act of adulterating food or drink, a different preceding provision may become relevant depending on the statutory text supplied.
Q38. What is the punishment under Section 275?
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 the imprisonment may be:
- Simple; or
- Rigorous.
The maximum term is six months.
Q40. What is the classification of Section 275?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, Section 275 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 273?
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. Has the imprisonment term changed according to the supplied comments?
Answer:
No change in the imprisonment term is identified in the supplied comments.
The stated change concerns the maximum fine.
Q43. How does Section 275 differ from Section 276?
Answer:
This distinction is important.
Section 275
Deals with:
Sale of noxious or unfit food or drink
The accused:
- Sells;
- Offers; or
- Exposes
unsafe food or drink while knowing or having reason to believe that it is noxious.
Section 276
Deals with:
Adulteration of drugs
The accused actually adulterates:
- A drug; or
- Medical preparation,
with the required intention or knowledge concerning medicinal sale or use.
Memory
275 = BAD FOOD SOLD
276 = BAD MEDICINE MADE
Q44. How does Section 275 differ from Section 277?
Answer:
Section 275
Deals with unsafe food or drink.
Section 277
Deals with sale or dealing in an adulterated drug or medical preparation.
Memory
275 = FOOD
277 = MEDICINE
Q45. What is the main mental-element distinction between Sections 275 and 277?
Answer:
Section 275
Requires:
Knowledge or reason to believe
Section 277
Requires:
Knowledge
Memory
275 = KNOW / REASON TO BELIEVE
277 = KNOW
Q46. How does Section 275 differ from Section 278?
Answer:
Section 275
Concerns food or drink that is noxious or unfit.
Section 278
Concerns a drug or medical preparation sold or supplied as a different drug or preparation.
Memory
275 = UNSAFE FOOD
278 = WRONG MEDICINE
Q47. What is the easiest way to identify Section 275 in an exam problem?
Answer:
Look for four ideas:
1. Food or drink;
2. Noxious or unfit condition;
3. Sale/offer/exposure;
4. Knowledge or reason to believe.
Formula
BAD FOOD/DRINK + MARKETED + KNOW/REASON TO BELIEVE = 275
Q48. What are the most important statutory words to remember?
Answer:
Remember:
- Sells
- Offers
- Exposes for sale
- As food or drink
- Rendered noxious
- Become noxious
- Unfit for food or drink
- Knowing
- Having reason to believe
Q49. What is the central principle behind Section 275?
Answer:
A person who knows, or has reason to believe, that food or drink is harmful or unfit must not place it into the market for consumption.
Simple Principle
Do not knowingly market unsafe food or drink.
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Subject Matter
Section 275 applies to:
Food
or
Drink
2. Condition of the Article
The article must:
Have been rendered noxious
or
Have become noxious
or
Be unfit for food or drink
3. Prohibited Acts
The accused must:
Sell
Offer for sale
or
Expose for sale
4. Mental Element
The accused must:
Know
or
Have reason to believe
that the article is noxious as food or drink.
5. Actual Harm
The section does not expressly require:
- Actual purchase;
- Actual consumption;
- Actual illness;
- Actual injury;
- Actual death.
Section 275 and the Drug Offences — Note-Form Comparison
Section 275 — Sale of Noxious Food or Drink
Subject
Food or drink
Core Wrong
Unsafe article placed for sale
Mental Element
Knowledge or reason to believe
Punishment
6 months / ₹5,000 / both
Memory
SELL BAD FOOD
Section 276 — Adulteration of Drugs
Subject
Drug or medical preparation
Core Wrong
Actually adulterating medicine
Mental Element
Intention or knowledge of likely medicinal sale/use
Punishment
1 year / ₹5,000 / both
Memory
MAKE BAD MEDICINE
Section 277 — Sale of Adulterated Drugs
Subject
Adulterated drug
Core Wrong
Knowingly dealing with adulterated medicine
Punishment
6 months / ₹5,000 / both
Memory
SELL BAD MEDICINE
Section 278 — Drug Sold as Another Drug
Subject
Drug identity
Core Wrong
One medicine knowingly passed off as another
Punishment
6 months / ₹5,000 / both
Memory
SELL WRONG MEDICINE
IPC Equivalent and BNS Change
IPC Equivalent
Section 275 BNS = Section 273 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 275 is:
Non-cognizable
Bailable
Any Magistrate
Quick Revision Notes
Section
275 BNS
Title
Sale of noxious food or drink
IPC Equivalent
273 IPC
Subject
Food / drink
Condition
Noxious or unfit
Acts
Sell / offer / expose for sale
Mental Element
Knowledge or reason to believe
Actual Sale Always Required?
No
Actual Consumption Required?
No
Actual Illness 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 actual sale is necessary
Incorrect.
Offer and exposure for sale are also covered.
Trap 2 — Assuming the food must be poisonous
Incorrect.
It may simply be noxious or unfit for consumption.
Trap 3 — Forgetting “reason to believe”
Section 275 is not limited to actual knowledge.
It also covers:
Reason to believe
Trap 4 — Assuming the seller must have caused the food to become noxious
Incorrect.
The seller need only know or have reason to believe in its noxious condition.
Trap 5 — Assuming actual illness is required
Incorrect.
The offence is preventive.
Trap 6 — Confusing Section 275 with Section 276
275 = sell unsafe food
276 = adulterate medicine
Trap 7 — Confusing Section 275 with Section 277
275 = unsafe food/drink
277 = adulterated medicine
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 275
FOOD / DRINK
+
NOXIOUS / UNFIT
+
SELL / OFFER / EXPOSE FOR SALE
+
KNOWLEDGE OR REASON TO BELIEVE
=
SALE OF NOXIOUS FOOD OR DRINK
Seventeen-Section Memory Chain
275 = 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
BAD FOOD → ADULTERATE DRUG → SELL ADULTERATED DRUG → WRONG DRUG → WATER → AIR → ROAD → NAVIGATION → SIGNAL → VESSEL → WAY → POISON → FIRE → EXPLOSIVE → MACHINE → BUILDING → ANIMAL
Key Takeaway
Section 275 BNS punishes a person who sells, offers or exposes for sale as food or drink an article that is noxious or unfit for consumption, while:
- Knowing that it is noxious; or
- Having reason to believe that it is noxious.
The offence does not require actual consumption, illness or injury.
Its central idea is:
UNSAFE FOOD/DRINK + MARKETED FOR CONSUMPTION + KNOWLEDGE/REASON TO BELIEVE
Section 275 corresponds to Section 273 IPC, and according to the supplied comments the substantive language remains unchanged, while the maximum fine has increased:
₹1,000 → ₹5,000
Rapid Revision
275 = NOXIOUS/UNFIT FOOD + SALE/OFFER/EXPOSURE + KNOW/REASON TO BELIEVE
Punishment = Up to 6 months / ₹5,000 / both
Classification = Non-cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate
