The definition of "food" in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is broad and includes any article used as food or drink for human consumption, even if it is not commonly consumed as food in a particular region. The sale of a sample of food to a Food Inspector for analysis constitutes a "sale" within the meaning of the Act, even if it is not intended for human consumption.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State Government from the judgment of the Additional District Munsif-Magistrate, Kovvur, in C. C. No. 162/1962 on his file, acquitting the accused-respondent of an offence under Section 16 (1) (a) read with Section 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called "the Act" ). The case against the respondent was that on 21-1-1962 at 6 P. M. at his shop at Nidadavole, he had sold a sample of coconut oil to the Food Inspector of Nidadavole Panchayat ; that when a portion of that sample was sent to the Public Analyst, it was found to contain 79 % of mineral oil and in the opinion of the Public Analyst, the consumption of coconut oil containing mineral oil is highly dangerous to public health ; and that, inasmuch as the respondent had sold adulterated food, he had rendered himself liable to punishment under Sec. 16 (1) of the Act.

( 2 ) ONE of the grounds upon which the lower Court based its order of acquittal was that "in these parts of the country coconut oil is used for external application and not for preparation of food-stuffs". In so holing, the learned Magistrate relied on an observation of Kumarayya J. , in Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 1959 (AP) to the following effect :- "it admits of no doubt that coconut oil as such is not an edible oil in this part of the country. "

( 3 ) HOWEVER, in an earlier decision in Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 1959 (AP), which apparently has not been brought to the notice of Kumarayya, J. , Sharfuddin Ahmed J. had held as follows :- "the second argument, which has found favour with the learned Sessions Judge, is that coconut oil is not used as an article of food in that part of the country. It is to be noted, that the definition of "food" in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is sufficient exhaustive to cover even coconut oil. It cannot be validly argued that if a particular commodity is not used as an article of food by certain people, or is not used as such in a part of the country, it losses its character as an article of food. For example, in certain parts of the Punjab, people use wheat only as a staple article of food; rice is seldom in demand in these areas. It cannot be urged therefrom that rice ceases to be an article of food in the Punjab. The learned Advocate for the respondent has not invited my attention to any ruling wherein it has been specifically held that the prosecution in each case has to establish that the article adulterated came within the definition of food as laid down in the Act. It is common experience that coconut oil is used both as an article of food and also for toilet purposes. "

( 4 ) THIS appeal came up before Mirza J. in the first instance. In view of the above difference of opinion between two learned single Judges of this Court, Mirza J. directed this appeal to be posted before a Bench. That is how the matter comes up before us.

( 5 ) ANOTHER ground upon which the learned Magistrate rested that order of acquittal was that there was no proof that the respondent had sold the sample of coconut oil as an article of food, and in support of this view, he relied on the decision of Manohar Pershad J. in Public Prosecutor (Andhra-Pradesh) v. S. Satyanarayana, AIR 1958 Andh-Pra 681, wherein the learned Judge has taken the view that before a conviction could be held under Sec. 16 read with Sec. 7 of the Act, the prosecution should not only prove that what was-sold was an article of food and that it was adulterated but the prosecution must also establish that the adulterated food had been sold as an article of food. The correctness of this view is canvassed before us by the learned Public Prosecutor.

( 6 ) BEFORE considering the legal issues involved in this case, it is necessary to set out the facts as they emerge from the evidence on record. The respondent is running a kirana (gorcery) shop at Nidadavole. On 21-1-1962 at about 5-30 P. M. P. W. 1 (R. S. Satyanarayan