Penalty for Adulteration by Licensed Vendor or Manufacturer

Summary

Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, outlines penalties for licensed vendors or manufacturers who adulterate intoxicants. It covers actions such as mixing noxious substances, mislabeling Indian Made Foreign Liquor, and using counterfeit labels. Offenders face imprisonment and fines, with harsher penalties for repeat offenses.

JavaScript did not load properly

Some content might be missing or broken. Please try disabling content blockers or use a different browser like Chrome, Safari or Firefox.

Explanation using Example

Example 1: Adulteration by a Licensed Vendor

Introduction: Ravi owns a licensed liquor store in Andhra Pradesh. To increase profits, he decides to mix a cheaper, noxious substance with the whiskey he sells, enhancing its apparent strength.

Application: According to Section 37(a) of The Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, Ravi's action of mixing a noxious substance with the intoxicant is prohibited. This act does not amount to adulteration under Section 272 of the Indian Penal Code but is still punishable under the Excise Act.

Outcome: If convicted, Ravi faces imprisonment for a term not less than one year and a fine not less than ten thousand rupees, as per the penalty clause for a first offence.

Conclusion: Compliance with the Excise Act is crucial for licensed vendors. Non-compliance can lead to severe legal consequences, including imprisonment and fines.

Example 2: Mislabeling Indian Made Foreign Liquor

Introduction: Sita runs a distillery that produces Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). To attract more customers, she labels her IMFL bottles as imported foreign liquor.

Application: Under Section 37(c) of The Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, Sita's act of using misleading labels to make it appear as foreign liquor is prohibited. This does not constitute using a false trademark under Section 482 of the Indian Penal Code but is punishable under the Excise Act.

Outcome: Upon conviction, Sita could face imprisonment for a term not less than one year and a fine not less than ten thousand rupees for a first offence.

Conclusion: Accurate labeling is essential. Mislabeling can lead to significant legal penalties, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the Excise Act's provisions.

Example 3: Counterfeit Excise Labels

Introduction: Mohan, an employee at a liquor manufacturing company, is found in possession of counterfeit excise adhesive labels intended for use on IMFL bottles.

Application: As per Section 37(e) of The Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, possessing counterfeit labels for use on liquor bottles is a punishable offence.

Outcome: If convicted, Mohan faces imprisonment for a term not less than one year and a fine not less than ten thousand rupees for a first offence.

Conclusion: The possession and use of counterfeit labels are strictly prohibited, highlighting the need for compliance with excise regulations.

Example 4: Selling IMFL as Foreign Liquor

Introduction: Priya, a licensed vendor, sells Indian Made Foreign Liquor but markets it as imported foreign liquor to increase sales.

Application: According to Section 37(b) of The Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, selling IMFL as foreign liquor is prohibited and punishable under the Act.

Outcome: Priya could face imprisonment for a term not less than one year and a fine not less than ten thousand rupees for a first offence if convicted.

Conclusion: Vendors must ensure accurate representation of their products to avoid legal repercussions under the Excise Act.