IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.12401 OF 2010 Between: Y.Krishna Murthy ….Petitioner A n d The Food Inspector, R.R.District Through the State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.12401 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners/accused in C.C.No.1024 of 2006, on the file of the XI-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. The subject food item in the present case is ice. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of exclusion of water from the definition of ‘food’ in Section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’) and ice being only another form of water, the provisions of the Act are not applicable and prosecution of the petitioners under the Act is unsustainable. 4. In that connection, he relied on the decisions in UDHABDAS V. STATE OF M.P.[1], wherein the High Court of M.P., held that ice is solid form of water and not an article of food and MUNICIPALITY, JAMMU V. M/S GLACIERS COLD STORAGE AND ICE MILL, JAMMU[2], wherein the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir held that ice is form of water and chemical composition of ice and water is same and they are treated at par by Legislature and excluded from the definition of ‘food’ under Section 2(v). He also relied on a decision of this Court in B.V.R.REDDY V. STATE OF A.P.,[3] wherein this Cour,t following the earlier judgments referred to supra, held that 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 Act in view of the specific exclusion of water from the definition of ‘food’ under Section 2(v). The present case is squarely covered by the earlier judgments referred to supra. 5. In the circumstances, it is held that further proceedings against the petitioners/accused in C.C.No.1024 of 2006, on the file of the XI- Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, are not sustainable, as the subject food item is excluded from the purview of the Act in view of the definition of the expression ‘food’ in Section 2(v) of the Act. 6. In the circumstances, it is held that further proceedings against the petitioners/accused in C.C.No.1024 of 2006, on the file of the XI- Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, are liable to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 14th December, 2010 Lrkm. [1] 1999 CRI.L.J 228 [2] 1980 CRI.L.J 755 [3] 2009(3) ALT CRL. 178