The intended use of food is irrelevant in determining whether an offence has been committed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

JUDGMENT :- This appeal is filed by the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State of Madras, against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in C. A. 36 of 1962. The accused, a grocery merchant in Tuticorin, was convicted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tuticorin, under S. 7, S. 16(1)(a) read with S. 7(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Section 7(v) states that no person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute any adulterated food. Section 16(1)(a) states that if any person, whether by himself or by any person on his behalf, sells or distributes, any articles of food in contravention or any of the provisions of the Act, he shall be punished.

2. The facts in case lie within a narrow compass. P.W. 1, the Sanitary Inspector of the Tuticorin Municipality, who is also the food inspector under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, went to the shop of the accused on 30-09-1961 and purchased 3/4 lb of compounded asafoetida for the purpose of analysis. P.W. 2 was present at that time. As usual, the samples were divided into three parts and there is no dispute that the prescribed formalities for taking of the samples were followed. On analysis by the Chemical Analyst, these samples were found to contain coal-tar dye, and it is not in dispute that admixture with that substance will amount to adulteration within the relevant rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. There was also a deficiency in the prescribed alcohol content, and this was another reason given by the Chemical Analyst, for holding the stuff to be adulterated. The trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.75 in default rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The learned Sessions Judge, in appeal, however, relying upon the admission of the attesting witness P.W. 2 in cross-examination, came to the conclusion that the accused represented to the Food Inspector P.W. 1, at the time of the purchase, that the asafoetida was being sold by him only for feeding cows and goats, and therefore by implication was not for human consumption. There was a witness on behalf of the accused, D.W. 1, who stated that inferior variety of asafoetida is used to be given to cattle. Accepting the evidence of the attesting witness and D.W. 1, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that the appellant offered to sell the asafoetida as an article of food for human consumption. He acquitted the accused. Against this acquittal, the Public Prosecutor has filed this appeal. He submits that the finding of the lower Court is so unreasonable that it should be reversed and the conviction of the trial Court confirmed.

3. The first point to be noted is that, according to S. 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954 "food" is defined as any article used as food or drink for human consumption and includes any flavouring matter or condiments. Asafoetida is a well-known condiment or flavouring matter which enters into the preparation of human food. What the accused contended and which contention was found acceptance at the hands of the learned Sessions Judge is that, it would not be an offence under the Act, if an article intended for human consumption is sold to a customer on the express understanding that it should be given to cattle and not consumed by human beings. The crux of the offence does not lie in the use to which the buyer may put an article, but whether intrinsically the article sold or exposed for sale is one used for human consumption or not. The plea of the accused seems to be that, because he used to represent to his buyers that this particular asafoetida which he bad in stock, should be used only for feeding cattle and not used as human food, he would be exempt from prosecution. It would be as if a vendor of adulterated milk could aver that he sold adulterated milk to a