Judgment : Against the acquittal of the respondents by the trial Court, who were charged under sections 7 (i) and 16(i)(a)(i) read with section 2(ia)(h) and (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and rules 27 and 44 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, the State has filed the above appeal. 2. It appears from the facts of the case that, the Food Inspector, who has been examined as P.W.1 on 30th December 1976 at about 8.30 a.m. at Walajabad, found the respondents in possession of turmeric for public sale. P.W.1 in order to purchase turmeric from the respondents, served Form IV notice, which is marked as Exhibit P-2 and purchased 900 grams of turmeric for Rs.5.40, for which the respondents issued a cash receipt, Exhibit P-1. Thereafter, P.W.1 divided the turmeric purchased from the respondents into three equal parts and packed and sealed them separately as required under the Rules of the Act. P.W.1 sent one packet to the Public Analyst and the two other packets to the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst in his report. Exhibit P-4 opined that the sample contained 45 parts of lead chromate per million parts. He also opined that the turmeric containing lead chromate is likely to cause grave danger to public health, as lead is a cumulative poison. It is on the basis of this report of the Public Analyst, after serving notice under section 13(2) of the Act along with the copy of the Public Analyst’s report, a case against the respondents was filed under the aforesaid sections. 3. When the respondents were questioned with reference to the allegations levelled against them, they denied the same. 4. The trial Court, on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, acquitted the respondents on the ground that the evidence of P.W.1 was not corroborated by any other evidence and, therefore, there was a grave doubt about the offence committed by the respondents. The trial Court was of the view that the turmeric purchased by P.W.1 was kept by the respondents in their shop, not for human consumption, but for some other purposes. Against the said acquittal of the respondents, the State has preferred the present appeal. 5. The trial Court was of the view that the turmeric purchased by P.W.1 was kept by the respondents in their shop, not for human consumption, but for some other purposes. Against the said acquittal of the respondents, the State has preferred the present appeal. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor brings to my notice that the finding of the trial Court, that there is no corroboration of the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be sustained as the evidence of P.W.1 is clear to the effect that he purchased the tumeric under Exhibit P-1 from the respondents. A cash receipt Exhibit P-1 was also issued by the respondents to the Food Inspector wherein it is mentioned that the article sold is for human consumption. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor argues that when once the evidence of P.W.1 is clear with respect to the purchase of turmeric from the respondents, the acquittal of the respondents on the ground that there is no corroboration of his evidence, is unsustainable. There is some substance in the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor. The evidence of P.W.1 with respect to the purchase of turmeric from the respondents is clear and it is also borne out from Exhibit P-1 which is attested by independent witnesses. 6. Under Central Act XXXVII of 1954, as amended, “food” means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of, human food; any flavouring matter or condiments and any other article which the Central Government may, having regard to its use, nature, susbstance or quality, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, as food for the purposes of this Act. It is obvious from the above definition that under the Act, an article of ‘food’ need not be fit for human consumption. It is enough if it is shown that the article is usually, generally or commonly used by the people for human consumption or in the preparation of foodstuffs consumed or to be consumed by human beings. It cannot be denied that turmeric is an Article of food which is generally or commonly used by the public for human consumption and in the preparation of human food. It cannot be denied that turmeric is an Article of food which is generally or commonly used by the public for human consumption and in the preparation of human food. I may again state that, to constitute ‘food’ for the purpose of this Act, it is enough that the article in question is usable as food or drink for human consumption. The word ‘used’ which is to be found in section 2(v) of the Act obviously means usable or capable of being used. That apart, it is not necessary for the prosecution to show that the adulteration must be injurious to health. It would suffice if the prosecution proves that the article of food does not, conform to the prescribed standard or it is covered within the definition of "adulterated" given under the Act. Under the Act, "adulterant" means any material which is or could be employed for the purposes of adulteration. An article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be. That apart, any article of food which contains any poisonous element or which renders any article of food injurious to health, as we find in the instant case from the report of the Public Analyst, will come within the mischief of section 2(i)(b) of the Act. The turmeric sold by the respondents, in the instant case, in its quality and purity, is below the prescribed standard and is an adulterated one. Such being the case, the sale of turmeric by respondents to P.W.1 is an offence punishable under Central Act XXXVII of 1954. In this case, the receipt Exhibit P-1 issued by the respondents to the Food Inspector; who has been examined as P.W.1 bore testimony to this effect, which is as follows: 7. No doubt, turmeric is used by people for medicinal and for other purposes for facial and external application and such an use of turmeric cannot be taken advantage of to contend, that turmeric is not used for human consumption. No doubt, turmeric is used by people for medicinal and for other purposes for facial and external application and such an use of turmeric cannot be taken advantage of to contend, that turmeric is not used for human consumption. Where, in a given case, as we find in Exhibit P.1 the sale receipt issued by the respondents, that what was sold was for human consumption, it is idle to contend that what was sold was not for human consumption. I am fortified in my view from a decision reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Krishnamurthy1, where in it has been held that "In order to be ‘food’ for the purposes, of the Act, an article need not be ‘fit’ for human consumption, it need not be described or exhibited as intended for human consumption, it may even be otherwise described or exhibited; it need not even be necessarily intended for human consumption; it is enough if it is generally or commonly used for human consumption or in the preparation of human food. Where an article is generally or commonly not used for human consumption or in the preparation of human food but for some other purpose, notwithstanding that it may be capable of being used, on rare occasions, for human consumption or in the preparation of human food, it may be said, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, that it is not food’. In such a case, the question whether it is intended for human consumption or in the preparation of human food may become material. But where the article is one which is generally or commonly used for human consumption or in the preparation of human food, there can be no question but that the article is "food." Taking into consideration the observations of the Supreme Court and considering the cash receipt Exhibit P-1 issued by the respondents, I am of the view that what was sold by the respondents was turmeric intended for human consumption which was found to be adulterated. Under the circumstances, the acquittal of the respondents by the trial Court is erroneous and the same deserves to be set aside and hence it is set aside. 8. Under the circumstances, the acquittal of the respondents by the trial Court is erroneous and the same deserves to be set aside and hence it is set aside. 8. I have gone through the case file in detail and the evidence projected by the prosecution and I find that on account of the mistake committed by the prosecuting agency in issuing section 13(2) notice before the filing of the complaint, the respondents have to be acquitted. In this case, section 13(2) of the Act contemplates that on receipt of the result of the public analysis to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local Health Authority shall, after the institution of the prosecution, (italicising is mine) against the person from whom the sample of article of food was taken, forward in such manner as may be prescribed a copy of the report of the result of the analysis, informing him, that if he so desires, he may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report, to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local Health Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. In the case, I find that the complaint against the respondents under the aforesaid sections was filed on 12th April, 1977 and the notice under section 13(2) of the Act was served on the respondents on 1st March, 1977, that is to say, prior to the filing of the complaint, which is contrary to section 13(2) of Central Act XXXVII of 1954. In view of the legal flaw committed by the prosecuting agency by sending the notice under section 13(2) of the Act to the respondents prior to the filing of the complaint, I am of the view that the entire prosecution has to fail. It is on this ground the acquittal of the respondents by the trial Court has to be sustained and this appeal filed by the State has to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.