BACK TO SECTIONS(2005) 4 SCC 350
BailableCognizable: Non-CognizableAny Magistrate
THE STATUTE
Original Text
Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be noxious as food or drink...
Simplified
Section 273 punishes the sale of harmful food — even if the seller did not adulterate it themselves. The knowledge element is critical: the seller must know or have reason to believe the food is noxious. A retailer who unknowingly stocks adulterated products supplied by a fraudulent manufacturer may have a defence; one who knows the products are harmful but sells them anyway is clearly within Section 273. The provision bridges Section 272 (the adulterator) and the consumer — creating criminal liability along the entire supply chain where knowledge exists.
Legal Evolution
Section 273 targets the retail sale of noxious food and drink, complementing Section 272's prohibition on adulteration. The provision reflects the IPC's structure of distinguishing between production-stage offences (272) and distribution-stage offences (273) in the food adulteration chain. While specialized food safety legislation now governs most such conduct, Section 273 retains relevance for egregious cases of knowingly supplying harmful food products.
Landmark Precedents
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar (2005)
RELEVANCE
A shopkeeper who sells adulterated food knowing it to be noxious is guilty under Section 273 regardless of whether they personally performed the adulteration.
Practical Scenarios
"A shopkeeper selling meat he knows is rotten and unfit for consumption — Section 273."
"Selling adulterated ghee knowing it contains non-food substances — Section 273."
Common Queries
Only if the food has become 'noxious' (harmful). Simply being past the expiry date might violate FSSAI regulations but not necessarily IPC 273 unless the food is actually harmful.