THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.P.Nos.629 & 636 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER:- These applications are filed by the accused/petitioners in C.C.No.489 of 2008 and 488 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudur for quashing of the proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (for short “the Act”). It appears that samples of Aloe Bio fruit drink were taken by the Food Inspector from the premises of Accused No.1 and the said samples were sent for analysis and it was found as per the opinion of the public analyst that the sample does not conform to the standards and, consequently, it is adulterated according to Section 2(ia) (m) of the Act. It was also alleged that Accused No.2 is the Managing Director and the Accused No.3 is the Company, which manufacturing the said drink. A prosecution has been launched on 05-12-2008 after obtaining necessary permission and a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was given on 31-12-2008. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the item purchased by the Food Inspector is not a “food item” and, consequently, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. As can be seen from the definition of “food”, under Section.2 (v) of the Act, if any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than the drugs and water. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that it is a drug manufactured by Accused No.3 and, therefore, it is not a “food material”. Even otherwise, according to him, it is only “water” and, consequently, it does not fall within the definition of the “food”. However, as can be seen from the label concerning in C.C.No.489 of 2008 and the report of analyst the sample is said to contain “Aloe Bio Fruit Drink Pine Apple”. In the other case also, it is contain as “fruit drink”. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that it does not fall within the description of “food article” as defined under the Act. However, it can only be during the trial by adducing proper evidence about the nature of manufacturing of the product, the accused can prove their non-liability, but, as matter stands the description of the article clearly attracts the definition of “food” and the standards which are found applicable by the analyst clearly shows that they are not up to the standard. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that there is a violation of Section 13(2) of the Act, as the life of the food article is only six months and the sample was taken on 31-05-2008 whereas the charge sheet was filed on 06-12-2008 and notice was served on 31-12-2008, consequently the right of re-analysis was lost. In view of the stand taken by the petitioners that it is not a food article and that it is only a medicine, whether there has been prejudice caused to the petitioners can also be agitated before the lower court and, therefore, in view of the above circumstances this contention has to be raised before the lower court. Hence, it is not a case of calling for quashing of the proceedings at this stage and, accordingly, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 17-11-2011 TSNR