JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra, J.—The basic question involved in the present case is whether country liquor falls within the definition of/Food* as contained infection 2 (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for brief, "the Act") or under any Rule framed thereunder. The matter came before a Division Bench on a. reference made by one of us (V. K Mehrotra, X). 2. In M/s. Associated Distilleries Pvt Ltd. Hissar, Haryana: v. State of H P., (1989 (II) Food Adulteration Cases 180), a learned Single Judge of this Court (Bhawani Singh, J) took the view that country liquor is not food within the meaning of that term under the Act so that the institution of proceedings against applicant M/s Associated Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. under the provisions of the Act was unsustainable in law. The proceedings were quashed by the learned Judge in exercise of the powers under section 482, Cr. P. C. . The learned Judge, in the course of his judgment in the case aforesaid, observed thus: " .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 tbe legislature, Reference to A. 01 and items following thereunder gives strength to come to this conclusion," 4.Thereafter, the learned Judge referred to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in District Medical Officer of Health City Board, Mussorie, Dehradun v. Asrar Singh and another, 1974 FAC 470 where liquor was held to be comprised in the definition of food under section 2 (v) of the Act and expressed his disagreement from the view taken therein. The learned Judge, subsequently in the judgment expressed his agreement with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in an un- reported decision in Shri Chaman Lai and others v. The State of Punjab, Criminal Misc. No. 5600-M of 1981, decided on July 22, 1982 and the subsequent decision of the same High Court in Tar Balbir Singh v State of Punjab, 1986 (II) FAC 152, following it. 5. No. 5600-M of 1981, decided on July 22, 1982 and the subsequent decision of the same High Court in Tar Balbir Singh v State of Punjab, 1986 (II) FAC 152, following it. 5. The submission which has been made before us by Shri M. S. Chandel, learned Asstt. Advocate General, is that having regard to the amplitude of the definition of the word food contained in section 2 (v) of the Act, it was not possible to say, as was done by Bhawani Singh, J, in M/s. Associated Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. that liquor* was not included in it. 6. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of Bill No. 101 of 1952, which took the shape of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, inter alia, says that : "Laws exist in a number of States in India for the prevention of adulteration of foodstuffs, but they lack uniformity, having been passed at different times without mutual consultation between States. The need for Central legislation for the whole country in this matter has been felt since 1957............ , “ The Bill will replace local adulteration laws where they exist and also apply to those States where there are no local laws The offence under the Act is now a cognizable offence and a great many sections have been brought in after consultation with all States and after close scrutiny of all existing measures in the States in order to see that it becomes easier for the State Government to deal with companies or individuals who go in for terrible crime of adulterating food because it is a crime against humanity to adulterate food. This Act will go a long way towards checking the evil ......" 7. The Act was amended in the year 1976 though the Amending Act No. 34 of 1976. The Statement of Objects and Reasons annexed to the Amendment Bill of the year 1974 said: "Adulteration of food articles is rampant in the country and has become a grave menace to the health and well-being of the community. It makes a heavy dent in the already low nutritional standards and the benefits of many public health programmes on which large sums of money are spent, are insidiously undermined. A major offensive against this evil is overdue. It makes a heavy dent in the already low nutritional standards and the benefits of many public health programmes on which large sums of money are spent, are insidiously undermined. A major offensive against this evil is overdue. Keeping in view the gravity of the problem and the growing danger which it poses to the health of the nation, it has become necessary to amend the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, so as to plug loopholes and provide for more stringent and effective measures with a view to curb this menace." 8. By section 25 of the Act, it was provided by the Legislature that any corresponding law in force in any State to which the Act extends, would stand repealed. 9. There were a large number of State enactments dealing with the question of adulteration of food. To name a few, there were in force, Assam Pure Food Act, 1947, (Act No. 32 of 1947) ; Bengal Food Adulteration Act, 1919 (VI of 1919) ; Bihar and Orissa Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1919 (II of 1919); The Bombay Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1925 (V of 1925); The Central Provinces Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1919 (II of 1919) ; The Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1918 (XII of 1918); The Punjab Pure Food Act, 1929 (VIII of 1929); The United Provinces Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1912 (VI of 1912) ; and the U. P. Pure Food Act, 1950 (32 of 1950). 10. The Supreme Court had occasion, more than once, to consider the object with which the Act was passed. In one of its decisions in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v, Kacheroo Mal, AIR 1976 SC 394 it observed (in paragraph 4) that : "The Act has been enacted to curb and remedy the widespread evil of food adulteration, and to ensure the sale of wholesome food to the people...... In one of its decisions in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v, Kacheroo Mal, AIR 1976 SC 394 it observed (in paragraph 4) that : "The Act has been enacted to curb and remedy the widespread evil of food adulteration, and to ensure the sale of wholesome food to the people...... Speaking further, about the rule of construction of a statute of this nature, it said (in the same paragraph) that: “It is well settled that wherever possible, without unreasonable stretching or straining, the language of such a statute should be construed in a manner which would suppress the mischief, advance the remedy, promote its object, prevent its subtle evasion and foil its artful circumvention ....,.," The Act defines food* in section 2 (v) as: "(v) "Food" means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes—- (a) any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of human food, (b) any favouring matter or condiments, and (c) any other article which the Central Government may .declare, by notification in the official Gazette, as food for the purposes of this Act. The definition is scopic. 11. The approach to be adopted in a legislation of the nature of the Act, has, of necessity, to be such which would subserve the object of the Act rather than detract from it. The definition is scopic. 11. The approach to be adopted in a legislation of the nature of the Act, has, of necessity, to be such which would subserve the object of the Act rather than detract from it. This is also apparent from the observations of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Virkumar Gulabchand Shah AIR 1952 SC 335 where the Supreme Court was examining the question whether turmeric was a "foodstuff" within the meaning of the Spices (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order, 1944, read with section 2 (a) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, Vivian Bose, J. speaking for the Court, noticed the dictionary meaning of the word "foodstuff", as contained in the Oxford English Dictionary as well as the definition of "food" in Websters International Dictionary which gave a specific definition for legal purposes as ; " used in laws prohibiting adulteration etc , food is generally held to mean any article used as food or drink by man, whether simple mixed or compound, including adjuncts such as condiments etc., and often excluding drugs and natural water." He then observed (in paragraph 10) that: " the term "foodstuff" in one sense has a narrow meaning and is limited to articles which are eaten as food for purposes of nurtition and nourishment and so would exclude condiments and spices such as yeast, salt, pepper, backing powder and turmeric. In a wider sense, it includes everything that goes into the preparation of food proper (as understood in the narrow sense) to make, it more palatable and digestible. In my opinion the problem posed cannot be answered in the abstract and must be viewed in relation to its background and context And, reiterated (in paragraph 14) by observing that: "So far as "food" is concerned, it can be used in a wide as well as a narrow sense and, in my opinion, much must depend upon the context and background... ....." 12. The observations aforesaid make it clear beyond doubt that the meaning to be given to the word food would essentially depend upon the •context and background in which it is used. 13. The object of the Act being to effectively meet the menace of food adulteration, it is clear that the definition of food contained in it should be attributed a wide meaning. 13. The object of the Act being to effectively meet the menace of food adulteration, it is clear that the definition of food contained in it should be attributed a wide meaning. This approach commended itself to the Delhi High Court in Bishan Das Mehta and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1970 Delhi 267 wherein the learned Judge deciding the case took the view that: "......In the context of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the purpose of which is to prevent adulteration of all articles which are used for human consumption, it would be consistent with the object of the Act to give wider meaning to the definition of food in the Act The learned Judge negatived the submission that an article, in order to be food, must be one which Is nutritious or helps in developing the tis ues of the body of human being. 14. The approach of the Delhi High Court finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ram- chandra Dange and others, AIR 1974 SC 228, wherein, speaking for a Constitution Bench, Krishna Iyer, J. observed (in paragraph 10) that; "......Indeed, learned Counsel treated us to an extensive study to make out that supari was not a food but a drug,.... law regulating adulteration of food which affects the common people in their millions and their health. The Act defines food very widely as covering any article used as food and every component which enters into it, and even flavouring matter and condiments. It is common place knowledge that the word "food" is a very general term and applies to all that is eaten by men for nourishment and takes in subsidiaries. Is supari eaten with relish by men for taste and nourishment ? It is. And so it is food.........../ 15. The importance of the provisions of the Act to society were highlighted by Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Grain and Seed Merchants Association and others v. Union of India and another, AIR 1971 SC 2346 while considering the question whether providing for imposition of liability without proof of a guilty mind amounted to imposition of un reasonable restrictions within the meaning of the Constitution of India. The Court took the view that the provisions of the Act, in saying so, did not impose any such unreasonable restriction, particularly because it dealt with "a grave social evil for ensuring public welfare especially in...,public healt" The Supreme Court also said that, while considering the question, it— " will consider the object of the Act, apprehended danger to the public interest, arising out of the activity if not controlled and the possibility of achieving the intended results by less stringent provisions......" 16. Even in the context of the applicability or otherwise of the pro visions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to a person brought to trial under the Act, the Supreme Court said in Ishar Dass v. The State of Punjab, 1972 FAC 150 that: "Adulteration of food is a menace to public health. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been enacted with the aim of eradicating that anti-social evil and for ensuring purity in the articles of food 17. We have adverted to the aforesaid observations from the various decisions of the Supreme Court only to emphasise that full effect should be given to the width of the amplitude in which food is defined in section 2 (v) of the Act, A limited definition, by any narrow interpretation, would be destructive of the object with which the Act was brought on the statute book by the Parliament. 18. A look at the definition contained in section 2 (v). even after its amendment in the year 1976 by which only clause (c) was added, shows that what was intended by the Legislature was that any article which is used as fosd or drink for human consumption (other than drug and water) should be covered by it. 19. Liquor(including country liquor) is an article used as a drink and is meant for human consumption. It is true that it is not used by every one or as an accompaniment to food, commonly understood, in all parts of the country. Yet, liquor is meant for human consumption and there is hardly any doubt about it. It is an article which is governed by the provisions of Excise Acts in force in various States. It is offered for sale by licensed vendors for human consumption. Yet, liquor is meant for human consumption and there is hardly any doubt about it. It is an article which is governed by the provisions of Excise Acts in force in various States. It is offered for sale by licensed vendors for human consumption. But, that will not exclude it from the category of food* as defined in the Act, for as observed by the Supreme Court in the State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1980 SC 538 in (paragraph 5) : "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....... But where the article is one which is generally or commonly used for human consumption. ...there can he no question but that the article is food " 20. It is not possible, nor indeed has it been urged before us, ,fbat country liquor is not used for human consumption. 21. The decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Tar Balbir Singh notices the unreported decision in Chaman Lai and others and says that: "admittedly no standard of alcoholic strength has been prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act In fact, in the list of various articles of food enumerated in the Rules, alcoholic preparations did not figure at all ,1 agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge in the said case," 22. Apart from the fact that an earlier decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Prem Singh and another v. The Union Territory\ Chandigarh, 1980 (II) FAC 143 where it was held that Gin’ was an article of food within the meaning of the Act was not noticed by the learned Judge deciding Tar Balbir Singh The only reason which appears to have commended itself to him is the fact that no standard of alcoholic strength has been prescribed under the Act and that in the list of various articles of food enumerated in the Rules framed under the Act, alcoholic preparations did not figure at all. This, to our mind, does not represent a correct approach to the problem. 23. A look at the provisions of the Act shows that section 16 con templates a penalty not only for an adulterated article of food, as defined in section 2 (ia), but also for misbranded article of food as defined in section 2 (ix). Prescription of a standard may have relevance to the offence of adulteration of an article of food. Absence of any standard being prescribed in the Rules for liquor (including country liquor) cannot therefore, be legitimately held to be a reason for excluding it from the category of food as defined in the Act, If one looks at the Rules one finds it provided, in Part VII dealing with packing and labelling of foods, several requirements enumerated in Rules 32 to 43, a breach where of may amount to the article of food being described as •misbranded. Most of the Rules contained in this Part may as well apply to the sale of liquor. 24. We may also mention, in passing, that standards are prescribed for liquor (including country liquor) which can be offered for sale for human consumption under the various State Excise Acts. 25. The amplitude of the definition of food contained in section 2 (v) of the Act was adverted to by the Supreme Court in Shah Ashu Jain-ant v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1975 SC 2178 where it was observed (in paragraph 10) that: “It is self-evident that certain articles, such as milk, or bread, or butter, or food grains are meant for human consumption as food. These are matters of common knowledge. These are matters of common knowledge. Other articles maybe presumed to be meant for human consumption from representations made about them or from circumstance in which they are offered for sale " 26. These observations, we feel, provide a clue to the determination of the question whether a particular article is food for purposes of the Act or dot. Liquor as noticed by us earlier, is offered for sale for human consumption though under the restrictions and in the manner envisaged by the various State Excise Acts. 27. There is another aspect of the matter. In some State Acts, prior to their repeal by section 25, the definition of food expressly excluded liquors or other excisable articles (intoxicants) used for human consumption. We may notice the definition of food, as contained in section 2 (g) of the U. P. Pure Food Act, 1950, which, in its material part, said: "Food" means any article of food or drink other than a drug, water, wine, liquors or other excisable articles (intoxicants) used for human consumption......" 28 The Parliament would be deemed to have knowledge of such a definition. While enacting the Act, it excluded only drugs and water from the definition of the word food. It must be ascribed the intention of not excluding liquor and other excisable articles (intoxicants) from the ambit of the word food for purposes of the Act. We concur with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in this regard in District Medical Officer of Health City Board Mussorie, Dehradun v. Asrar Singh and another, 1974 FAC 470. We find it difficult to subscribe to the view, to the contrary of Bhawani Singh, J. in M/s. Associated Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. In fact, we arc inclined to share the view of a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in M/s Khedan Lal and Sons v. State of U. P. and others, 1981 (1) FAC 260 expressed by it in the following observations (in paragraphs 6 and 7): "The object of enacting Prevention of Food Adulteration Act obviously is not only to prevent sub-standard articles of food being mixed with food which is offered for sale but it also is to see that no such article which contains harmful or substandard material enters into the preparation of food. It is to cover all cases of injurious articles of food entering the human body that section 2 (v) of the Act has given an extended meaning to the word food-.. So defined food means not only an article which normally a person eats or drinks with a view to nourish his body (as ordinarily understood) but also an article which normally is not consider ed to be food, but which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food " 29. We would like to add that what is true for an ingredient of an article of food will be true in respect of a commodity like liquor which enters the human body as a drink by a large section of society. 30. For the reasons aforesaid we are of opinion that for purposes of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, liquor (including country liquor) is included in the definition of ‘food as con tained in section 2 (v) and that the view, to the contrary, taken in M/s. Associated Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1989 (II) FAG 180, is not correct in law. 31. In the view that we have taken, it is clear that the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, challenged in the present case, is unsustainable on the ground on which it has been passed. However, we are inclined to the view that respondents Raja Ram and Malik Ram be not required to face a fresh trial in the present case for the reason, firstly,, that the position of law in regard to their culpability was somewhat in doubt and, secondly, that the offence for which they were brought to trial - took place over four years back on February 27, 1986. The circumstances of the present case do not justify an order for retrial. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 32. The case shall stand disposed of finally accordingly. Order accordingly.