Judgment :- SUKUMARAN, J. The statutory favour of 'Flavoured Milk' as that term is employed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 comes up for determination by the Full Bench. The issue has arisen in two food adulteration cases, one from Neyyattinkara and the other from Ottappalam. Different Judges of this Court have differently reacted; the conflict is reflected in the differing approaches and conclusions reached by the courts below, in almost similar situations. The accused were convicted in one case but acquitted in another. Subsequent to the judgments in the two cases, this Court pronounced on the identical point in Food Inspector v. Aboobacker, 1986 Ker LT 1117. It was held that rose milk is not milk or flavoured milk, that no standards have been prescribed for rose milk, and that prosecution based on adulteration for the short fall in standards cannot succeed. The correctness of the decision was doubted by other Judges and accordingly the question has come up in reference before the Full Bench. 2. Crl. Appeal No. 159 of 1986 is by the Food Inspector, challenging the acquittal made by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ottappalam in S.T. No. 613 of 1984 by which the accused were acquitted under Section 255(1) Crl.P.C. The prosecution was launched essentially on the ground that the sample of food taken from the accused did not conform to the standard prescribed for flavoured milk. It is not disputed that the shop from which the milk was taken displayed a board offering, among others, 'rose milk'. The analysis as evidenced by Ext. P-19 report revealed deficiency in relation to milk fat and milk solid; it also disclosed added water in excess of that prescribed. The court accepted the contention of the defence that 'rose milk' purchased by the Food Inspector cannot be termed as 'flavoured milk'. It was also found that no freezing point test had been conducted to ascertain the existence and extent of added water. 3. C.C. 18 of 1982 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Neyyattinkara which led to Crl R.P. 292 of 1984, arose out of a case where the Food Inspector purchased 'rose milk water', which on analysis was found to be not in conformity with the standards prescribed for flavoured milk. Ext.D1 was the report which contained the result of the analysis. The fat content fell below the minimum standard. Ext.D1 was the report which contained the result of the analysis. The fat content fell below the minimum standard. So too did the milk solids fat. Defence had a contention that what was sold was not flavoured milk. It was not accepted by the trial court which held that the accused did not indicate the class to which rose milk water belonged and consequently the standards applicable to buffalo milk could be adopted. Accordingly the court held that adulteration had been made out, making the accused liable for the punishment. The accused were accordingly convicted and sentenced. The appeal before the sessions Judge was unsuccessful. The appellate court also proceeded on the basis that "rose milk water taken is not in conformity with the standards prescribed for flavoured milk". 4. The question is important. The Director of Public Prosecutions appeared for the State. T. Ravi Kumar and S. Radhakrishnan Nair presented the points of view of the accused. With the assistance at the Bar so available, we shall proceed with the difficult process of decision making. 5. Even in relation to a seemingly simple interpretation of the term 'flavoured milk' certain larger aspects have to be borne in mind. A citizen of India has a right, a Fundamental Right, to carry on a trade or business. Trading in food articles is a perfectly permissible legal activity. Trade in certain articles do not enjoy the Court's good will or encouragement drugs and liquor for example. An article of food is not such an obnoxious one. Imposition of reasonable restrictions on the trading activity cannot be of such a drastic character as in the case of those dangerous items of trade. Yet, food is not merely another vendible commodity. It plays a prominent part in the human life. Adulteration is therefore treated as a heinous crime. Even a casual glance at the width of the definition of the term 'adulteration' spanning over sub-cls. (a) to (m) of S. 2(1)(a), indicates the sweep and width assigned to the term by Parliament. An appropriate machinery, including the bureaucratic apparatus of the local authority, is set up to contain the anti-social activities in adultering food. The balancing of the citizens' right to carry on a trade in food and the State's anxiety to prevent food adulteration, has to be done while dealing with every statutory provision and every function of the statutory authority. 6. The balancing of the citizens' right to carry on a trade in food and the State's anxiety to prevent food adulteration, has to be done while dealing with every statutory provision and every function of the statutory authority. 6. The area of operation of the Act is so wide and pervasive, that many matters of details have been rightly left for the Executive, to be dealt with by means of statutory rules. The Rules themselves are of an unwieldy character. Quite often, the intendment of the rule had been frustrated, and action against traders had failed due to the ambiguities in the Rules. Large number of amendments to the Act and the Rules, right from the time the Act came on the statute book in 1955 is illustrative of the confusing concepts, slippery situations and uncertain aspects covered by the Rules. Failure of the draughtsmen is revealed in many contexts. The courts will have to undertake the interpretational exercise, despite these difficulties. 7. One definition which is important is that of 'food' contained in S. 2(v) of the Act. The definition reads as follows : "(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 flavouring matter or condiments, and (c) any other article which the Central Government may having regard to its use nature, substance or quality, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, as food for the purposes of this Act;" That inclusive definition takes within its fall, any colouring or flavouring matter. In relation to any sophisticated items of food, flavouring matters have their prominent role. So too is the case with colour. A food item which is nutrious but inert, acquires a better appeal to the eye and to the plate when a flavour is added or a colour is given. Herber, who had widely travelled all over India, noticed the dry, stimulant and aromatic food served in the Mogul durbars. (See 'A Journey in India' by Herber (R)). Flavoured food had been taken note of even by those who devour the pages of written words. Leslie Stephen made a confession that he could not dine on flavoured dish every day. (See 'Studies of Biography' by Leslie Stephen, page 331). (See 'A Journey in India' by Herber (R)). Flavoured food had been taken note of even by those who devour the pages of written words. Leslie Stephen made a confession that he could not dine on flavoured dish every day. (See 'Studies of Biography' by Leslie Stephen, page 331). Association with a food item can give, even without a physical addition, a keen colour such as in the case of blue cheese (which requires an acquired taste for enjoying it as a delicacy). Instances are too numerous to be catalogued. One may even accidentally tumble upon the history of rose water, in quite unexpected quarters; such as in the context of the word stories about your dining table : "Here is a name poetic as a Kentucky colonel. The origin lies in the Arabic word julab which meant "rose-water." This innocent potion became alcoholic in the good old U.S.A. As early as 1787 records show that the landlords of Virginia started the day at six in the morning with a julep as an eye-opener." (See 'Word Origins the Their Romantic Stories' by Wilfred Funk, page 171). The Act and Rules have taken particular care to ensure that the process of adding flavour or giving colour does not injure the health. Elaborate provisions exist to ensure that the flavouring agents and the colouring materials are edible, and with the requisite standards as provided under the detailed rules. 8. We may now come to the specific item of food with which we are concerned. In the background of a country with agricultural bias and traditional dependence on cattle wealth, milk figures as an important item of food. The Rules have taken special care to deal with that important item of food. An exhaustive coverage of milk in all its forms is easily discernible. Thus, we get reference to different classes of milk, like that of cow, buffalo or goat. There is reference to different designations of milk such as pasteurised, sterilized and boiled milk. Milk in different forms also are dealt with such as milk Powder of 'khaja'. Even milk products have received particular attention when they are widely consumed such as in the case of ice-creams, milk ices or milk lollies. 9. The Rules have rightly given minute attention to matters connected with the purity and edibility of milk. Milk in different forms also are dealt with such as milk Powder of 'khaja'. Even milk products have received particular attention when they are widely consumed such as in the case of ice-creams, milk ices or milk lollies. 9. The Rules have rightly given minute attention to matters connected with the purity and edibility of milk. Appendix B sets out the standards of quality for different types of food. This function is referable to R. 5 which reads : "Standards of quality of the various articles of food specified in Appendix B to these rules are as defined in that appendix." 10. Appendix B (A. 11) has the caption "Milk and Milk Products". There is a sub-paragraph therein, A. 11.01 'Definitions'. The terms dealt with in that context could legitimately be taken as definitions as visualised therein. The term is defined by employing the word "means" as in most of the definitions. In some of the sub-paragraphs, however, 'means' is missing. But that does not detract from the definition character of the terms. For example, A. 11.01.01 reads : "Milk is the normal mammary secretion derived from complete milking of healthy milk animal without either addition thereto extraction there from, it shall be free from Colostrum ...." This is in contra-distinction with the definitions of 'pasteurised milk', 'sterilised milk', mixed milk', standardised milk', 'recombined milk', 'toned milk', 'double toned milk', and 'skimmed milk', covered by the various sub-paragraphs ranging from A. 11.01.02 to 11.01.10. A.11.01.05, which deal with 'Flavoured Milk', is the sole exception. Having regard to the grouping of the various terms and the purpose and the treatment given to them, we are of the view that the term 'flavoured milk' as contained in A. 11.01.05 is also a definition term. 11. When the Act and the Rules thus furnish a dictionary of its own in b relation to 'flavoured milk', the courts have ordinarily to apply the definition whenever the necessity and occasion arise. 12. A close look at the term 'flavoured milk', would indicate the existence of different but essential components and a completed processing of one sort or other in relation to the article. The first part of the definition would insist on the presence of the following articles so as to clear an article as 'flavoured milk': (a) milk (b) edible flavours (c) edible colour and (d) cane sugar. The first part of the definition would insist on the presence of the following articles so as to clear an article as 'flavoured milk': (a) milk (b) edible flavours (c) edible colour and (d) cane sugar. The first sentence of A. 11.01.05 does not, in terms, refer to milk. However, the last sentence reads : "The type of milk shall be mentioned on the label". This would effectively pose the existence of milk as an essential component of flavoured milk. Edible flavours would take in the enumerated categories, and unenumerated ones. Possibly, due to the frequent use, some (like coffee or chocolate) are assumed to be edible flavours. Nuts, irrespective of their physical shape or form comes within edible flavour, as is evident from the descriptive words "nuts (whole, fragmented or ground)." It is not difficult to conceive of the use of nuts for furnishing flavour to the milk; 'badam' is well known; cashew is yet another. There could be other flavours of the edible variety outside the enumerated groups. The words in the first sentence, namely, "other edible flavours" would furnish cue to the understanding of the preceding words nuts, chocolate, and coffee as coming within edible flavours. 13. Edible food colours, are also well known in Beverates Industry. Many have been dealt with in the Rules themselves. Saffron or rose or coaltardye, all come within that group. 14. Thus presence of edible flavour, an edible food colour and cane sugar, would be indespensable to make milk a flavoured milk. While the presence of the ingredients is thus of vital importance, they do not exhaust the essentials to be satisfied for answering the definition of 'flavoured milk.' All these ingredients may exist in raw milk; yet such a raw milk will not answer the definition of flavoured milk; for, the next limb of the clause insists; "Flavoured milk shall be pasteurised, sterilised or boiled milk." Milk which is pasteurised, sterilised or boiled, containing edible flavours as indicated, and edible colours, and cane sugar will cumulatively make out the ingredients of the definition of "flavoured milk." 15. A Division Bench of this Court in Food Inspector v. Aboobacker, 1986 Ker LT 1117, observed : "For rose milk no standard has been prescribed under the Rules." It further proceeded to hold that rose milk is a "special preparation for which the standard prescribed for flavoured milk or milk cannot attract." Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishnan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1976 : (1966 Cri LJ 1347), which dealt with butter milk and an absence of prescribed standard for it. The decision of the Supreme Court in Krishnan's case supra explained that butter milk did not answer the designation of raw, flavoured pasteurised, sterilised or boiled milk, the varieties which are referred to in Appendix B. That reasoning may not be fully applicable to cases of rose milk, in a situation where all the ingredients of definition of 'flavoured milk' are satisfied. Appendix A.11.01.05 itself starts by a positive command to ignore the name by which the article is called. That is the emphasis underlying the words "by whatever name called". It comprises the old and well set idea : what is there in a name ? A rose smells the same, whatever be its name ? A rose smells the same, whatever be its name. In a given situation, it may be possible to get rose milk, which contains every one of the essential flavours enumerated or other edible flavours, and edible colour and cane sugar and the milk being boiled, pasteurised or sterilised. Such a flavoured milk is one of the categories enumerated in the designation in Appendix A.11.01.11. The fact that it is called 'rose milk' will not extricate it from the designation 'flavoured milk' referred in the appendix for which standards are prescribed, only for the reason that it is termed 'rose milk'. 16. In different jurisdictions, we come across different drinks or beverages. 'Khaja milk', was considered by the Punjab and Hariyana High Courts in J. P. Aggarwal & Sons v. State of Punjab, (1977) 39 STC 86. Chinnappa Reddi, Ag. C.J. speaking for the court, took the view while interpreting the relevant term in the Sales Tax Act, 'Khaja milk' could not be equated to milk, as the two commodities were entirely different. Chinnappa Reddi, Ag. C.J. speaking for the court, took the view while interpreting the relevant term in the Sales Tax Act, 'Khaja milk' could not be equated to milk, as the two commodities were entirely different. 'Milk shake', on the other hand, was interpreted by the Allahabad High Court as coming within the term 'milk' itself (Vide Commr. Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Lucknow Co-operative Milk Supply Union Ltd., (1972) 30 STC 165. It is unnecessary to consider in this case, those larger aspects. We have analysed the Act and the Rules, and in particular, the prescriptive standards ensuring the requirements needed for the milk food in general and flavoured milk in particular. 17. The ruling in 1988 Ker LT 1117 supra itself will indicate the different situations in which a vendor of rose milk could be proceeded against for possible violations of other rules such as those relating to prohibited flavours and colours. 18. As we indicated in the beginning, th analysis or sample should be subjected to close observation, side by side, with the provisions before the local authority concerned launches its prosecution missile. If essential ingredient in relation to the type milk with reference to which the complaint is made, are not satisfied, the Prosecution will have to meet an inevitable failure. The remedy lies in intelligent analysis of the data, the wise application of the legal principle and a well conducted prosecution with evidence satisfying the requirements of a careful and concerned Court. 19. We shall now consider the facts of the two cases. In Cri. Appeal No. 159/86, there was no evidence that the milk was pasteurised, sterilised or boiled. Nor was there any confirming evidence that it contained edible flavour. Viewed from any angle, either from that of the ingredients, or from that of the processings undergone, important components of the definition of 'flavoured milk' are conspicuously absent. In that view of the matter, the prosecution has necessarily to fail. 20. In Crl.R. 5.292/84, the analysis did not indicate the existence of cane sugar. What the sample contained was only saccharin. We are not concerned with the question whether the use of saccharin by itself constitutes a violation of Act or Rule as there is no charge in that behalf. In that case also, evidence is wanting about milk having undergone processing of pasteurisation, sterilisation or boiling. What the sample contained was only saccharin. We are not concerned with the question whether the use of saccharin by itself constitutes a violation of Act or Rule as there is no charge in that behalf. In that case also, evidence is wanting about milk having undergone processing of pasteurisation, sterilisation or boiling. The existence of an edible flavour has not been established either. In this case also, the prosecution has not discharged its basic duty of sustaining the charge about sale of 'flavoured milk'. 21. The basis of the prosecution in both the cases is that the milk did not conform to the standards of 'flavoured milk'. If the Prosecution has not established that the sample taken was that of 'flavoured milk', the charge would fail. The court is not then concerned with the question whether the person concerned could have been punished for another charge such as, for example a violation of R. 44(g); nor is the court concerned with the question whether the accused could put up a defence, if he is proceeded against for selling raw milk; that with all those additional ingredients and supplementary processes (such as pasteurising, sterilising and boiling), the milk ceased to be raw milk. It is a very responsible onerous duty of those entrusted with the Prosecution proceedings, to have a close application of mind, and an intelligent co-ordination between the date disclosed and the provisions indicating a sustainable offence. A concentrated attention and disciplined legal mind together may be indispensable to achieve the best results expected of the effective implementation of the enactment. making administrative machinery perfect in that behalf is the concern of the State. The cases on hand would indicate the necessity to have a well oiled prosecution machinery, while dealing with such serious social crimes. In the light of the above discussion, the accused in both the cases are entitled to be acquitted. The acquittal ordered by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Ottappalam is confirmed. Crl. Appeal No. 159 of 1986 is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence concurrently made by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara and the Sessions Court, Trivandrum are unsustainable and they are accordingly set aside. Crl.R.P. 292 of 1984 will stand allowed. Order accordingly.