But a hearing by CDO ensures a verdict comes as swiftly as possible. [break]
"The district attorney may have chosen Black Marketeering Act to initiate a prompt action against those found cheating the consumer with low-grade food items despite it having softer punishment provisions compared to the provisions in other related Acts," said Laxmi Prasad Dhakal, chief district officer of Kathmandu.
Black Marketeering Act and Food Act are heard by CDO of the district concerned whereas Consumers Protection Act can be forwarded to the district court.
As per the Consumers Protection Act, up to 14 years of jail and a penalty up to Rs 500,000 can be slapped against those dealing with low-grade goods if they are convicted whereas Black Marketeering Act requires two years of jail and compensation. Similarly, Food Act also provides for two years of jail term and a fine of up to Rs 5,000 against the wrongdoers.
"Though the Food Act has envisaged two years of imprisonment and Rs 5,000 in fine, we have slapped a fine of Rs 5,000 against the culprits in most cases. We have no record of sentencing any such people to a jail term since the enactment of the Act almost five decade ago," said Pramod Koirala, spokesperson of Department of Food Technology and Quality Control (DFTQC).
As a matter of fact, there is no record of any individual having been sent to jail for selling sub-standard sweets or gudpak items.
Recent market monitoring carried out by the government agencies has found a number of food outlets including popular gudpak and sweet producers using sub-standard raw materials cheating the consumers on the eve of upcoming festive season.
So far, six businessmen have been arrested and legal action has been initiated against them by police.
Consumers Protection Act, Food Act and Black Marketeering Act are applied against those found involved in cheating the consumer with sub-standard and adulterated food items.
Recent cases related to production and distribution of inferior quality and inedible foods have been dealt by Kathmandu District Police Range (DPR) under the Black Marketeering Act on the instruction from the District Administration Office, Kathmandu, and in consultation with the district attorney.
"Slow process of filing cases against the culprits by DFTQC and the Department of Commerce (DoC) under the Food Act and the Consumer Protection Act have prompted the prosecutors to chose Black Marketeering Act though it is less stringent than other Acts in terms of punishment," said Jyoti Baniya, general secretary of Forum for Protection of Consumer Rights-Nepal.
Baniya said amid mounting pressure from consumers to immediately punish the culprits in view of growing production and sales of sub-standard goods, enforcement of the Black Marketeering Act seems to be a fast track way for taking action as the police can file the cases directly to DAO as per the advice from the district attorney.
Tika Prasad Bhandari, market inspecting officer at DoC, said legal process to settle the cases under the Consumers Protection Act and nominal amount of punishment under the Food Act have proved ineffective in dealing with the menace. However, under the Black Marketeering Act, CDO can issue direct order for immediate punishment once the case is filed at DAO.
Poorly-manned DFTQC and DoC can´t speed up filing the cases and that proved an obstacle in effectively monitoring and prosecuting the culprits. Trend of slapping a minimum punishment to unscrupulous business people has encouraged such unethical acts in the market.
Effective monitoring of market and prompt action against the wrongdoers have not been effective as DFTQC is relying on only 10 market inspectors in the valley and 25 inspectors out of the valley.
DOC, which is serving as the central market monitoring unit of the government, is poorly manned with only five officials for market monitoring in the capital which is home to over four million people.
Related story
India to establish over 1,000 courts to 'Fast Track' rape cases...
