The sole accused in C.C. No.92 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni, Kurnool District facing prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act"), filed this petition for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the ice blocks in question, which were found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst, do not come within the meaning of article of food or drink for human consumption under Section 2(v) of the Act and that 'water' is excluded specifically from the definition and that mere conversion of water into ice will not make the standards prescribed in Appendix 07.04 applicable to ice.

Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent, are heard.

The learned senior counsel referred to three precedents commencing from Municipality, Jammu v. M/s. Glaciers Cold Storage & Ice Mill (1980 CRI.L.J. 755), wherein a Division Bench held that ice is only a form of water, which is excluded from the definition of food under Section 2(v) of the Act, but in case, ice is something other than water, then being an article, which is ordinarily consumed by human beings, it would be an article of food under the Act. The Division Bench noted that the chemical composition of both ice and water is the same and consequently, the accused therein facing prosecution under identical circumstances as in the present case, was acquitted.

Similarly, in Babu v. Food Inspector (1980 (TLS) 1120754), the Kerala High Court held that ice is only frozen water and is excluded from the purview of Section 2(v) of the Act being another state of water. Ice, in order to be regarded as ice candy, must contain some other ingredient in addition to frozen water to be brought within Appendix B. A. 07. 04. In coming to the conclusion, the learned Judge followed the decision of Orissa High Court in Banabihari v. Food Inspector (1975 Crl. Law Journal NOC 23).

It was further held in Udhabdas v. State of M.P. (1999 CRI.L.J. 228) also, following Kerala High Court, that water used in Section 2(v) admits more than one construction as to the inclusion of ice in it and such construction, which is favourable to the accused on a reasonable interpretation, has to be accepted.

The preponderance of judicial opinion is, thus, that mere conversion of water into ice without anything more will not bring ice within the purview of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in view of the specific exclusion of water from the definition of food under Section 2(v).

Consequently, on the admitted facts of the present case, the petitioner is entitled to succeed and the further proceedings in C.C. No.92 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni, Kurnool District against the petitioner are quashed. The criminal petition is allowed accordingly.