JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—The petitioner, approaches this Court, by this petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 66 of 1985, State v. Pawan Kumar and others, under section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act wherein the main grievance of the petitioner relates to the order dated 12-2-1985 passed by the trying Magistrate for summoning the petitioner as an accused in this case. 2. The brief facts of this case are that a sample of Rustam Country Liquor was taken from Shri Pawan Kumar, Salesman, L-14 Vend, Ner Chowk, Mandi, on 7-12-1984 by the Food Inspector. It was got analysed from the Public Analyst who reported (Annexure-P-1) that the alcoholic strength was less by 16 degrees than represented on the lable of 750 ml. bottles. As a consequence thereof, complaint was filed by the Food Inspector, District Mandi, on 12-2-1985 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi. The order passed is as under: "From the perusal of the record, there appears a prima facie case made out against the accused under section 16 (1) (a), Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Accused be summoned for 12-3-1985." 3. The grievance of the petitioner, against this order, is that the learned trying Magistrate has issued summons without sufficient grounds for the same. The precise basis of this submission is that the learned Magistrate has not found whether any offence was committed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as liquor is not a food and, therefore, the provisions of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 are not attracted to the present case. Having failed to understand this aspect of the matter, the petitioner, urges through his Counsel Shri K. D. Sood, that for non-application of mind and a routine exercise, such an order summoning the petitioner could not have been passed. 4. Shri K. D. Sood has referred to a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc. No. 5600-M of 1981, Shri Chaman Lal and others v The St ate of Punjab, decided on 22nd July, 1982, to support his submission that no standard of alcoholic strength is prescribed under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act nor liquor is a food article. I am of the opinion that this argument of the learned Counsel has a substance. No. 5600-M of 1981, Shri Chaman Lal and others v The St ate of Punjab, decided on 22nd July, 1982, to support his submission that no standard of alcoholic strength is prescribed under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act nor liquor is a food article. I am of the opinion that this argument of the learned Counsel has a substance. Alcoholic beverages have not been included in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the legislature. It only contains non-alcoholic beverages. Under alcoholic beverages (A-29), only toddy has been included (A. 29.01) which indicates that no other alcoholic beverages, including liquor have been included as an item of food. It is, in fact, consumed as an intoxicant and not as food speciality. That may be a reason of its non-inclusion by the legislature. Reference to A.01 and items following thereunder gives strength to come to this conclusion. 5. With respect, I do not agree with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in District Medical Officer of Health City Board, Mussorie. Dehradun v. Asrar Singh and another, 1976 FAJ 22, where liquor has been described by the learned Judge to come under the definition of food in section 2 (5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act without reference to the Rules and the standards prescribed thereunder for various types of food articles. On the other hand, I agree with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the aforesaid case, followed in the subsequent case, namely, Tar Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986 (II) FAC 152. The view expressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in these two cases is nearest to the point in issue in this case and I, therefore, take assistance from these cases to come to the conclusion that no case is made out against the accused and the proceedings, as prayed, deserve to be quashed. 6. The result is, there is merit in this petition, the same is allowed and the proceedings pending in the trial court are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.-