For the first time in Indian consumer law, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 puts a manufacturer in the dock of a criminal court rather than merely before a redressal commission. Chapter VII of the Act (Sections 88 to 93) creates a graded ladder of offences and penalties that escalates from a six-month sentence for a harmless adulterant to imprisonment for life where a consumer dies. Read alongside the product-liability regime of Chapter VI and the enforcement powers of the Central Consumer Protection Authority, these provisions mark the legislative shift from a purely compensatory model to one of deterrence and punishment. This article explains who is punished, for what conduct, and how the punishment is graded by the gravity of harm, with verified statutory text and the leading enforcement actions.
From compensation to criminal liability
The repealed Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was almost entirely a compensatory statute: a consumer wronged by a manufacturer obtained refund, replacement or damages from a District, State or National Commission, and the only quasi-penal teeth lay in Section 27 (penalty for non-compliance with a Forum's order). The 2019 Act fundamentally re-orients this scheme. Chapter VI introduces a statutory product liability action (Sections 82 to 87), and Chapter VII for the first time creates substantive criminal offences punishable by ordinary courts. A manufacturer who manufactures, stores, sells, distributes or imports an adulterated or spurious product now faces not a mere direction to pay compensation but imprisonment, fine, and the suspension or cancellation of its licence.
This shift answers a long-standing critique that consumer law in India was toothless against deliberate wrongdoing. As the introduction to the Act explains, the legislature consciously borrowed from product-liability and penal models in other jurisdictions to deter manufacturers who treated occasional damages awards as a cost of doing business. The punishments in Chapter VII must therefore be read not in isolation but as the criminal back-stop to the civil redressal and product-liability framework, and as a complement to the regulatory penalties wielded by the Central Consumer Protection Authority.
Who is a 'manufacturer' for the purpose of punishment
Before mapping the offences it is essential to fix who the Act treats as a manufacturer, because the punitive sections variously use the words 'manufacturer', 'product manufacturer' and the generic 'whoever'. Section 2(28) defines a manufacturer to include a person who makes any goods or parts thereof; assembles parts made by others and claims the end product to be goods manufactured by himself; or puts or causes to be put his own mark on any goods made by any other person and claims such goods to be goods made by himself. Section 2(36) separately defines a product manufacturer for the product-liability chapter to include those who make or assemble products, design products, manufacture components, or affix their brand. The detailed scope of these terms is examined in the definitions note.
The practical effect is wide. A trader who buys generic goods and sells them under a private label is a manufacturer; an assembler who badges another's components as its own is a manufacturer; and an importer who brands imported goods is treated as a manufacturer. This is why Sections 90 and 91 deliberately use the catch-all 'whoever, by himself or by any other person on his behalf' rather than the narrower defined terms, so that the punishment reaches the controlling mind behind the manufacturing operation as well as any person acting at its instance.
Section 88 - penalty for non-compliance with a CCPA direction
The first offence in Chapter VII is essentially an enforcement penalty. Section 88 provides that whoever fails to comply with any direction of the Central Authority under Sections 20 and 21 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to twenty lakh rupees, or with both. Section 20 empowers the CCPA to recall unsafe goods, order reimbursement and discontinue unfair practices; Section 21 empowers it to direct the discontinuance of, or modification to, a false or misleading advertisement and to impose penalties on the manufacturer, endorser or publisher.
Section 88 therefore criminalises defiance of the regulator. A manufacturer that ignores a recall order or a take-down direction risks both the administrative penalties under Section 21 and the criminal sanction under Section 88. The scope of the directions that trigger this liability is set out in detail in the note on the Central Consumer Protection Authority. Notably, cognizance of a Section 88 offence may, under Section 92, be taken only on a complaint by the Central Authority or an officer authorised by it, preserving the regulator's gatekeeping role.
Section 89 - false or misleading advertisement
Section 89 directly targets the manufacturer's marketing conduct. It provides that any manufacturer or service provider who causes a false or misleading advertisement to be made which is prejudicial to the interest of consumers shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees; and for every subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to fifty lakh rupees. Unlike Section 88, the fine here is mandatory and conjunctive ('and with fine'), not in the alternative.
The most prominent recent illustration of the State's appetite to act against misleading advertising is the Patanjali litigation, Indian Medical Association v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2022). Though a writ petition rather than a Section 89 prosecution, the Supreme Court's orders through 2023-2024 pulled up Patanjali Ayurved for advertisements claiming its products were complete cures for various diseases, extracted undertakings to cease such claims, and by its order of 7 May 2024 held that celebrities and social-media influencers who endorse a product are equally responsible for misleading advertisements. The case crystallised the principle that the manufacturer who 'causes' an advertisement to be made cannot hide behind the endorser, and the endorser cannot hide behind the manufacturer.
CCPA penalties against advertisers in practice
Most action against misleading advertising has flowed not through Section 89 criminal prosecutions but through the CCPA's administrative penalty power under Section 21, which the powers and functions of the CCPA note examines. Following the Authority's Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements in the Coaching Sector issued on 13 November 2024, the CCPA issued dozens of notices to coaching institutes and imposed cumulative penalties running into tens of lakhs of rupees on centres that made false claims about examination results. Individual orders have fined institutes such as Motion Education and others several lakh rupees each for advertising misleading UPSC and competitive-examination success claims.
This dual track is important for examination purposes: the same misleading advertisement can attract both an administrative penalty under Section 21 (imposed by the CCPA) and criminal punishment under Section 89 (imposed by a court on a CCPA complaint under Section 92). The administrative route is faster and more frequently used; the criminal route is reserved for serious or repeat conduct. The two are not mutually exclusive, and a manufacturer may face both.
Section 90 - products containing an adulterant
Section 90 is the heart of the manufacturer-punishment regime for product safety. It provides that whoever, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any product containing an adulterant shall be punished on a sliding scale calibrated to the harm caused. The Explanation defines 'adulterant' as any material including extraneous matter which is employed or used for making a product unsafe, and pegs 'grievous hurt' to the meaning in Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Section 116 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
The graded punishment is as follows: where the act does not result in any injury, imprisonment up to six months and fine up to one lakh rupees; where it causes injury not amounting to grievous hurt, imprisonment up to one year and fine up to three lakh rupees; where it causes injury resulting in grievous hurt, imprisonment up to seven years and fine up to five lakh rupees; and where it results in the death of a consumer, imprisonment which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, with fine not less than ten lakh rupees. Critically, the death and grievous-hurt limbs carry a statutory minimum, removing judicial discretion to impose a token sentence.
Cognizability, non-bailability and licence consequences under Section 90
Section 90 attaches two further consequences that sharply distinguish it from the compensatory scheme. First, sub-section (2) declares the offences under clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) - that is, those causing grievous hurt or death - to be cognizable and non-bailable. A manufacturer whose adulterated product grievously injures or kills can therefore be arrested without warrant and is not entitled to bail as of right. Second, sub-section (3) empowers the court, notwithstanding the substantive punishment, to suspend any licence issued to the offender under any law for up to two years on a first conviction, and to cancel the licence on a second or subsequent conviction.
The licence sanction is a potent commercial deterrent: a food, drug or manufacturing licence is the lifeblood of the enterprise, and its cancellation can extinguish the business entirely. This blends the regulatory and criminal consequences in a way the 1986 Act never contemplated, and reflects the legislative intent to make deliberate adulteration commercially fatal rather than merely expensive.
Section 91 - manufacturing or dealing in spurious goods
Section 91 mirrors Section 90 but targets spurious goods rather than adulterated products. Section 2(43) defines spurious goods as goods which are falsely claimed to be genuine. Section 91 provides that whoever, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any spurious goods shall be punished: where the act causes injury not amounting to grievous hurt, with imprisonment up to one year and fine up to three lakh rupees; where it causes injury resulting in grievous hurt, with imprisonment up to seven years and fine up to five lakh rupees; and where it results in the death of a consumer, with imprisonment not less than seven years but extending to life, and fine not less than ten lakh rupees.
Two structural differences from Section 90 deserve note. First, Section 91 has no 'no injury' limb: because passing off counterfeit goods as genuine is inherently deceptive, the legislature did not create a lesser six-month offence for harmless cases - the offence begins only once injury results, leaving non-injurious counterfeiting to the unfair-trade-practice and product-liability routes. Second, sub-section (2) makes the grievous-hurt and death limbs (clauses (b) and (c)) cognizable and non-bailable, and sub-section (3) carries the identical licence suspension-and-cancellation power as Section 90.
Interface with the product-liability chapter
The punishments in Chapter VII operate alongside, not instead of, the product-liability action in Chapter VI. Section 84 imposes civil liability on a product manufacturer where the product contains a manufacturing defect, is defective in design, deviates from manufacturing specifications, does not conform to an express warranty, or fails to carry adequate instructions or warnings. Section 84(2) makes this liability strict to the extent that a manufacturer is liable on an express-warranty claim even if it proves it was neither negligent nor fraudulent. A single defective product can thus trigger both a compensatory product-liability claim before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions and a criminal prosecution under Section 90 or 91.
The 2024 decision in Union of India v. Nestle India Ltd. (2024 SCC OnLine NCDRC 33) illustrates the evidentiary demands of the product-liability route. The National Commission dismissed the Government's 2015 complaint over alleged excess lead and 'No Added MSG' labelling in Maggi noodles, holding that the laboratory report relied upon showed lead within permissible limits and that the scientific material did not indict Nestle India, so neither a deficiency in service nor an unfair trade practice was established. The case underscores that, whether civil or criminal, liability for an unsafe product turns on rigorously proved laboratory and causation evidence - a manufacturer is not punished on suspicion alone.
The Maggi saga and the burden of proof
The Maggi episode is instructive on how the burden of proof disciplines manufacturer punishment. After samples in 2015 suggested lead above the 2.5 ppm limit and the presence of MSG despite a 'No Added MSG' claim, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India banned nine Maggi variants. In Nestle India Ltd. v. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, the Bombay High Court by its judgment of 13 August 2015 set aside the nationwide ban, holding that FSSAI had acted in breach of natural justice and had relied on samples tested at laboratories not accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories.
For the punitive provisions of the 2019 Act, the lesson is direct: an allegation that a product is adulterated within Section 90 or spurious within Section 91 must rest on properly conducted, accredited laboratory testing and must survive the procedural fairness that any penal action attracts. The graded, minimum-sentence structure of Sections 90 and 91 makes the stakes for the manufacturer extremely high, which is precisely why the courts insist on unimpeachable scientific proof of both the adulterant or spuriousness and the resulting injury.
Reaching the company and its officers
Because manufacturing is usually carried on by companies, the phrase 'whoever, by himself or by any other person on his behalf' in Sections 90 and 91 is designed to reach both the corporate manufacturer and the natural persons who direct its affairs. While the 2019 Act does not contain a free-standing 'offences by companies' provision in the mould of Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the courts apply settled principles that a company can be prosecuted and fined, and that those in charge of and responsible for the conduct of its business may be proceeded against where the statute so contemplates. The licence suspension and cancellation powers in Section 90(3) and Section 91(3) further ensure that the corporate entity itself, not merely an individual, bears the consequence.
Section 95 reinforces the enforcement architecture by deeming the Presidents and members of the Commissions, the Chief Commissioner and Commissioner of the Central Authority, the Director General and other officers to be public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code while acting under the Act. This protects the integrity of the very officials who investigate and prosecute manufacturers, and is balanced by Section 93, which itself punishes a Director General or officer who conducts a vexatious search without reasonable grounds.
Compounding, cognizance and procedural safeguards
Not every Chapter VII offence is irredeemably criminal. Section 96 permits compounding of offences punishable under Sections 88 and 89 - that is, non-compliance with CCPA directions and false or misleading advertisements - either before or after the institution of prosecution, on payment of a prescribed amount that cannot exceed the maximum fine for the offence, and only with the leave of the court where a complaint has been filed under Section 92. Compounding is barred for a person who commits the same or similar offence within three years of a previous compounding, and acceptance of the compounding sum is deemed to amount to an acquittal under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Significantly, the serious product-safety offences under Sections 90 and 91 are not compoundable, reflecting their gravity. Section 92 erects a further filter: no court may take cognizance of an offence under Sections 88 and 89 except on a complaint filed by the Central Authority or an officer authorised by it. The Authority therefore acts as gatekeeper for the advertising and non-compliance offences, while the adulterant and spurious-goods offences - being cognizable in their aggravated forms - may be set in motion by the police machinery. This calibrated mix of compoundability, cognizance filters and minimum sentences is the procedural skeleton of manufacturer punishment under the Act.
How the 2019 punishments differ from the 1986 Act
The contrast with the 1986 regime is stark. Under the old Act, a manufacturer's worst-case exposure for non-compliance with a Forum order was Section 27 - imprisonment of one month to three years or fine of two thousand to ten thousand rupees - and there was no offence at all for manufacturing an adulterated or spurious product as such; that conduct fell to be dealt with under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act or general penal law. The 2019 Act for the first time brings adulteration and counterfeiting of any product within the four corners of consumer legislation, attaches imprisonment up to life and minimum fines of ten lakh rupees where death results, and adds licence cancellation as a collateral sanction.
For the consumer, this means the rights catalogued in the consumer rights note - in particular the right to be protected against goods hazardous to life and property - are now backed by a credible criminal deterrent rather than only a damages remedy. For the manufacturer, the message is that knowingly placing an unsafe or fake product in the market is no longer a calculable commercial risk but a serious cognizable crime. A consolidated reading of the punitive scheme sits within the broader framework explained across the Consumer Protection Act notes hub.
Exam takeaways
For judiciary and CLAT-PG candidates, the punitive chapter rewards precise recall of figures. Remember the four-step adulterant ladder of Section 90 (no injury: six months / one lakh; injury short of grievous hurt: one year / three lakh; grievous hurt: seven years / five lakh; death: minimum seven years to life / minimum ten lakh) and that Section 91 for spurious goods omits the 'no injury' limb but otherwise mirrors the grievous-hurt and death limbs. Note that the death and grievous-hurt limbs are cognizable and non-bailable, and that both sections carry licence suspension on first conviction and cancellation on repeat conviction.
Equally testable is the architecture: Section 88 (CCPA-direction non-compliance, six months / twenty lakh, compoundable), Section 89 (misleading advertisement, two years / ten lakh, five years / fifty lakh on repeat, compoundable), the Section 92 cognizance filter for Sections 88 and 89, and the Section 96 bar on compounding the serious offences. Anchor the discussion in Indian Medical Association v. Union of India on misleading advertising and Union of India v. Nestle India Ltd. on the evidentiary rigour required to establish that a product is unsafe.
Frequently asked questions
What is the maximum punishment a manufacturer can face under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
The most severe punishment is under Sections 90 and 91 where a defective product results in the death of a consumer: imprisonment which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, together with a fine not less than ten lakh rupees. These offences are cognizable and non-bailable, and the court may also cancel the manufacturer's licence on a second or subsequent conviction.
What is the difference between Section 90 and Section 91 punishments?
Section 90 punishes manufacturing, storing, selling, distributing or importing a product containing an adulterant (extraneous matter making the product unsafe), and includes a 'no injury' limb punishable with up to six months' imprisonment and one lakh rupees fine. Section 91 punishes the same conduct in relation to spurious goods (goods falsely claimed to be genuine) but has no 'no injury' limb - liability begins only once injury results. Both share identical grievous-hurt and death limbs and identical licence consequences.
Can a manufacturer be jailed for a misleading advertisement?
Yes. Under Section 89, a manufacturer or service provider who causes a false or misleading advertisement prejudicial to consumers can be punished with imprisonment up to two years and fine up to ten lakh rupees, rising to five years and fifty lakh rupees for a subsequent offence. In practice the CCPA more often imposes administrative penalties under Section 21, as it did against coaching institutes in 2024-2025, but the criminal route under Section 89 remains available on a complaint under Section 92.
Are offences by manufacturers under the Act compoundable?
Only some. Section 96 allows the offences under Sections 88 (non-compliance with CCPA directions) and 89 (misleading advertisement) to be compounded, before or after prosecution, with the leave of the court and on payment of an amount not exceeding the maximum fine. The serious product-safety offences under Sections 90 and 91 dealing with adulterants and spurious goods are not compoundable, reflecting their gravity.
What did the Nestle Maggi litigation decide about manufacturer liability?
In Nestle India Ltd. v. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (Bombay High Court, 13 August 2015) the court set aside the nationwide Maggi ban for breach of natural justice and reliance on samples from non-accredited laboratories. Later, in Union of India v. Nestle India Ltd. (2024 SCC OnLine NCDRC 33), the National Commission dismissed the Government's complaint, holding that the lead content was within permissible limits and the evidence did not indict Nestle. Together they show that punishing a manufacturer for an unsafe product demands rigorously proved, accredited scientific evidence.
How do the 2019 punishments compare with the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
The 1986 Act had no offence for manufacturing an adulterated or spurious product as such; the manufacturer's main criminal exposure was Section 27 (one month to three years for non-compliance with a Forum order). The 2019 Act, by Chapter VII, criminalises adulteration and counterfeiting directly, introduces imprisonment up to life and minimum ten lakh rupee fines where death results, and adds licence suspension and cancellation. This marks the shift from a purely compensatory regime to one of criminal deterrence.