IMPORTANT POINT
Ice cannot be brought within the purview of food article in view of specific exclusion of water from the definition of food and drink u/s 2(v) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

ORDER

Gudiseva Shyam Prasad, J.—This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.135 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Gajapathinagaram, Vizianagaram District.

2. The 2nd respondent-Food Inspector has filed a complaint against the petitioners/ accused alleging that on 06.05.2008, at 4.30 PM, when he visited G.V.L. Ice Factory, along with his staff, he found that ice is being manufactured with water for the purpose of selling the same to the public for the purpose of drinking and storage of fish in the chemical factories. The complainant purchased ice and packed it in three containers and sent one sample for analysis to the Public Analyst along with Form VII. The Local (Health) Authority received the report from the Public Analyst dated 16.06.2008 stating that the sample sent to him is adulterated and, therefore, the 2nd respondent obtained sanction and filed complaint on 08.07.2010.

3. Heard Sri P.A. Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Andhra Pradesh.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they are falsely implicated in the present case and, therefore, sought for quashing of proceedings against them. It is further submitted that water is excluded specifically from the definition of food and drinks under Section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act), and mere conversion of water into ice without adding any substance to it will not bring ice within the purview of Section 2(v) of the Act. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in B.V.R. Reddy v. State of A.P, and submitted that this Court has considered a similar issue in that case and quashed the proceedings, holding that ice is not a food article and hence the provisions of the Act do not apply to the instant case. It is further submitted that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was served on the petitioners on 26.11.2010, and the said notice was not sent by registered post along with copy of the analysis report received in Form III from the Public Analyst within the stipulated time of 10 days of receipt of the report from Public Analyst. It is further submitted that there is inordinate delay in serving the Section 13(2) notice, thereby, the petitioners have lost their valuable right to get the sample analysed by the Central Laboratory. Learned counsel has also placed reliance in S.V.V. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of A.P., Radheshyam Lohiya and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh, C. Rama Murthy and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh re. by the Food Inspector, Division I Ranga Reddy District, and M. Jaipal Reddy and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh. He has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Sangani Venkateswara Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another, wherein this Court observed in paragraphs 4 and 5 as under:

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused is that the fact that the ice cubes were inspected and samples were taken is not in dispute, but he contended that the said product do not attract the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for the reason that the ice is a flexible article and is not a food article and the water is excluded specifically from the definition of food and drinks under Section 2(v) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused relied on a decision of this Court in B.V.R. Reddy vs. State of A.P in support of his contentions.

5. In the above said decision, learned single Judge of this court, after referring various authorities on the subject, has categorically held that ice cannot be brought 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).

On these ground