Madras HC calls for stringent action against milk adulterators

Chennai: Pulling up the authorities for their failure to take stringent action against adulterators and in preventing prevent milk adulteration, the Madras high court directed the authorities to take proactive steps to produce a more comprehensive report before the court.

A division bench comprising Justices Vineet Kothari and Anita Sumant gave the directive on a Public Interest Litigation filed by advocate A. P. Suryaprakasam, which sought a CBI probe into the allegation of milk being sold in Tamil Nadu is adulterated and if found true, prosecute the adulterated milk producing companies.

As directed by the court earlier, Government Pleader (in-charge) filed a report before the court.

After perusing the report, the bench said “the report of convictions and the imprisonment prima facie shows that most of the accused persons and convicts are getting away with the payment of fine rather than the imprisonment for serious offences of food adulteration. This requires serious attention of this court as well as the trial courts and the prosecution.”

“Therefore, we direct the respondents represented by the nodal officer who is present in the court today to step up the process of search and surveys and investigation and launching of more such prosecution cases, so that those who indulge in such illegal and criminal acts of selling adulterated food and milk in the State are dealt with strongly”, the bench added and posted to January 21, 2019, further hearing of the case.

 Earlier, when the case came up for hearing, the bench, after perusing the report, expressed shock over the rate of conviction and said even conviction ended in payment of fine amount. “Unless you send them to jail, they will not stop. Food safety is must”, the bench added.

 The bench said the problem of milk adulteration was increasing. That was why the PIL was filed. But the data shows less number of cases. The report was bereft of details. It did not contain how many surveys were conducted, how many samples were collected and tested, how many licenses were granted, how many tenders were called for in the state. The authorities' duty was to ensure food safety.

“You have to show significant effort to check the menace. Necessary guidelines will be issued to our subordinate courts also. We are looking at the PILs very seriously. Next report should contain all information and should be more comprehensive. If not, something will be done”, the bench added. Advocate Suryaprakasam pointed out that in 8 years only 8,000 samples were collected and out of which more than 30 percent of the samples found to be dangerous or sub-standard.