The central legal point established in the judgment is that coffee does not qualify as a foodstuff falling within the definition of an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act.

1. An interesting but important question as to whether "Coffee" is an Essential Commodity as defined in Section 2 of the Essential Commodities Act has come up for consideration in this appeal.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Court for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore in S.T.C.No. 3 of 2011 wherein the Special Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Clause 4 of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of Standard) Order 1977 read with Section 7 (1)(a)((ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and sentenced him to undergo S.I for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo S.I for 2 months.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant had obtained license for the manufacture of cattle feed at Thindal village, and the same was functioning in the name and style of "Star Mill". On 23.02.1994, the Inspector of Police, CS CID, Erode inspected the premises of the said Mill and according to him, he found adulterated Coffee Powder and Tea Powder with Cashew husk powder. Therefore, the prosecution was launched after following the legal formalities against the petitioner for having adulterated tea powder as well as coffee powder with cashew husk powder. The petitioner denied the accusation.

4. During trial, on the side of the prosecution as many as 14 witnesses were examined and 27 documents were exhibited besides 24 material objects.

5. Before the trial Court it was mainly contended by the appellant that 'tea' and 'coffee' are not foodstuff as stated in Section 2 of the Essential Commodities Act and therefore, the prosecution under the said Act is not sustainable. For this proposition, before the trial Court, the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.Samuel M.D.Harrisons Malayalam and another VS Union of India reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 218 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Tea is not a foodstuff. Consequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of Standards) 1977 is ultra virus to the power of the State Government to the extent to which it makes the provisions in relation to Tea. Based on the same, the trial Court acquitted the appellant in respect of the accusation relating to adulteration of Tea. But in respect of Coffee, the trial Court convicted the appellant and that is how, the appellant is before this Court with the appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would again rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samuel's case cited supra to submit that 'Coffee' and 'Tea' are more or less equivalent and they are only beverages and therefore, 'Coffee' also cannot be a foodstuff as stated under Section 2 of the Essential Commodities Act and thus, it is not an essential commodity as defined in this Act. The learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court (Hon'ble Judge S.Ashok Kumar) in S.P.Jaswanth Kumar and two others Vs State rep. By Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D. Coimbatore reported in 2006-3-L.W (Crl) 617 wherein relying on the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, the learned Judge has held that 'Tea' is not a foodstuff and therefore, the conviction of the accused under the Essential Commodities Act is not sustainable.

7. The learned counsel would rely on yet another judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Division Bench) in Brooke bond India Ltd VS Union of India and others reported in 1984 (15) E.L.T.32 (A.P.) wherein in paragraph 82 and 83, the Division Bench has held as follows:

"Thus on an integral reading of Item No.2 relating to coffee, Item No.1B relating to the food of particular kind mentioned therein, Item No.1C relating to food products of particular kind mentioned therein, the residuary Item No.68 of the First Schedule and the exemption notification in question, the Legislative intent