Judgment.- This appeal by the State is directed against the Judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada in C.C No. 60 of 1967 acquitting the accused of the charge under section 16 (1) read with section 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, holding that there is no standard prescribed for Ajowan and shown in Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The respondent-accused a licensed kirana merchant at Samalkot has been charged for the offence of selling adulterated ajowan at about 10-50 A.M.on 26th March 1066 to P.W. 1, the Food Inspector. P.W. 1 has sent the food sample to the Public Analyst who found the sample of ajowan adulterated as it contained 10. 1.per cent of ash insoluable in hydrochloric acid P.W. 2 is the successor to P.W. 1 who, after the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst filed the charge sheet against the accused. P.W. 3 is the owner of a coffee hotel at Samalkot and the panchayatdar who was present at the time of the sale of ajowan by the accused to P.W. 1 and he corroborates the testimony of P.W. 1. The accused, in his statement, admits the sale to P.W. 1 of 350 grams of ajowan on receipt of 68 paise, for being sent to the Public Analyst for examination, but contends that the sample sold by him was pure ajowan and he did not commit any offence. The trial Magistrate held that the sale of the food sample to P.W 1 by the accused is true, but as the prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish that any standard was prescribed with regard to ajowan and shown in Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, acquitted the accused. Hence this appeal. Sri Jayachandrareddy, the learned Public Prosecutor, contends that the order of acquittal based on the assumption that no standard has been fixed for ajowan in Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Hence this appeal. Sri Jayachandrareddy, the learned Public Prosecutor, contends that the order of acquittal based on the assumption that no standard has been fixed for ajowan in Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Sri Dwarakeswara Rao, for the accused, urged that ajowan is not an article of food at all and the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are not applicable to the present case, and in any event the standard has not been fixed for ajowan by the Appendix B, and hence, the order of acquittal is perfectly valid and justified The learned Public Prosecutor resisted the contention of the accused that aiowan is not an article of food, and has taken me through the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in support of his contention. On the aforesaid facts and contentions of the respective parties the following points arise for determination in this appeal: (1) whether ajowan is or is not an article of food within the meaning of section 2 (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ? (2) Whether any standard has been fixed for ajowan in Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules? (3) whether conviction can be sustained even though any standard has not been fixed in respect of any particular article of food which has been found to have been adulterated within the meaning of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act? (4) Whether the order of acquittal is liable to be set aside. With regard to the first question, it is profitable and necessary to consider the definition of ‘food’ as given in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 2 (a) of the Act reads: “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, and (b) any flavouring matter or condiments.” Neither in the Act nor the Rules made thereunder, the enumeration or specification of any articles of food has been given. Hence, the definition of ‘food’ under section 2 (v) of the Act is of very wide import to include every article used as food or drink in whatever form it may be unless the same is specifically excluded. The intention of the Legislature in giving for the expression ‘food’ a meaning of wide import is to make the provisions of the Act applicable to all articles of ‘food’ in whatever form they may be intended for human consumption. It is neither proper nor possible to restrict the meaning of the expression ‘food’ by trying to exclude something which is not given in the section. The inclusive defintion of ‘food’ under the Act is wide enough to take in any article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of the articles of human food or any flavouring matter or condiments. I shall presently examine the scope and meaning of the expression ‘ordinarily’ used in section 2 (v) of the Act. According to shorter Oxford Dictionary, the word ‘ordinary’ means as ‘of usual kind; nor singular or exceptional’ and ‘as a matter of regular occurrence, in most cases, usually.” In Municipal Board, Kanpur v. Janki Prasad and another1, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court while considering whether linseed oil is comprehended by the definition of food ‘given in section 2 (v) (a) of the Act, observed at page 435: — “..........it is in the sense of non-exceptional or usual that the word ‘ordinarily ‘has been used in section 2 (v) of the Act. The word ‘ordinarily’ does not mean primarily nor does it mean “universally.” It does not also mean ‘generally ‘By the use of the word ordinarily the Legislature intended to provide that if an article enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food even by some people usually and not as exception it would be deemed to be food”. The contention raised in that case by the accused that linseed oil was being mainly used for making varnishes and paints and the same cannot be considered to be ordinarily used as an article of food, was negatived by the learned judges who observed at page 436: “An article may have more than one use and it may ordinarily be used for more than one purpose. The mere fact that linseed oil is also used for making varnishes and paints would not make it any the less an article of food as defined in section 2 (v) of the Act.” In Public Prosecutor v. Nagabhushanam2, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the word ‘ordinarily ‘in clause (0) (a) of section 2 of the Act has been used by the Legislature with an intention to lay down that ‘when an article or substance is used as an ingredient in the preparation of food even by some inhabitants of this country, usually and not as something exceptional or out of the ordinary, it would come within the definition of food’. In that case, their Lordships, though found that coconut oil is not used as an article of food in the State of Andhra Pradesh, have held it to be an article of food within the meaning of section 2 (v) of the Act, as the same is used extensively in Kerala as a cooking medium and the Malayalees, wherever they are, generally use coconut oil for that purpose. To arrive at a conclusion whether ‘Vamu‘ (ajowan), the article with which we are concerned in the present case, is or is not an article of food, it is relevant to consider the scope and meaning of the same. Sankaranarayana’s Telugu English Dictionary: "Vamu (in Telugu)........see Omamu (in Telugu) ......Omamu (in Telugu)......the seed of bishop’s weed. Sison ammi, Plychotis ajowan." The Andhra Pradesh Sahitya Academy’s Telugu Nighantuvu."; ........... The meaning given by ‘Telugu Nighantuvu’ prepared and published by the Andhra Pradesh Sahitya Academi for the Telugu expression ‘Omamu’ (ajowan) is to the effect that it belongs to the family of carum copiticum and the same is being used often as medicinal herb and rarely used for flavouring. Ajowan, according to the Chamber’s Twentieth Century Dictionary means ‘a plant of the caravay genus yielding ajowan oil and thymol." ‘Caraway’ is meant by Webster’s New World Dictionary as ‘(1) a plant with spicy, strong-smelling seeds ; (2) the seeds used as a flavouring for bread, cakes, confections, and cheese and as a carminative." It is of common knowledge that ajowan would be used for preparing food articles like ‘muruku’, snacks, curries and pickles, in preparation of which this article ajowan (Vamu) is being used are admittedly articles of food intended for human consumption. The provisions of section 2 (v) (a) as well as (b) are applicable to the case of ajowan known as ‘vamu’ as it ordinarily enters into and is used in the composition or preparation of articles of food. I am unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Dwarakeswara Rao that ajowan is used only rarely in the State for preparation of articles of food and the same cannot be held to be an article of food. The expression ‘ordinarily ‘ is not used in the sense that the same should be used mainly or regularly but if it is used usually or normally for preparation of any article of food or for flavouring curries, it must be held to be an article of food. Ajowan is no doubt used for medicinal purposes and on that account alone, it, cannot be said that the same is not ordinarily used as an article of food. It may have utility for preparing medicines as well as foodstuffs. Similarly there are a number of articles of food which are enumerated in the Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which are admittedly used for different purposes. But still, if such articles ordinarily enter into apart from their other use, or are used in the composition or preparation of an article of food intended for human consumption, they must be held to be articles of food within the meaning of section 2 (v) of the Act. Hence in the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, I have no hesitation to hold that ajowan known as ‘vamu’ or (omamu) (omum) in the State of Andhra Pradesh is an article of food within the meaning of section 2 (v) of the Act. The next question that survives for determination is whether ajowan is shown in Appendix B and whether any standard has been fixed for this article of food. Clause A 05.03 in Appendix B of the Rules reads: "Caraway (Carum carvi) seeds shall not contain: (a) More than 5 per cent, of foreign seeds. The next question that survives for determination is whether ajowan is shown in Appendix B and whether any standard has been fixed for this article of food. Clause A 05.03 in Appendix B of the Rules reads: "Caraway (Carum carvi) seeds shall not contain: (a) More than 5 per cent, of foreign seeds. (b) More than 8 per cent, of total ash, and (c) More than 1.5 per cent, of ash insoluable in HCL." The article of food (ajowan) belongs to the family or genus of caraway (carum carvi) seeds, for which the standards have been fixed in Appendix B of the rules as referred to above. According to the specification of the standard fixed, the insoluable ash should not be more than 1.5 per cent. In the present case, the Public Analyst in his report Exhibit P-7 has specifically found, after analysis 10.1 per cent, ash insoluable in Hydrochloric acid. Hence, the article of food ‘ajowan’ sold by the accused to P.W. 1 in the present case must be found to have been adulterated Within the meaning of section 2 (a) (b) as well as (c) of the Act. This view of mine is also supported by the unreported decision of my learned brother, Narasimham, J. in Criminal Appeal No. 713 of 1966, dated 12th April, 1968. Even assuming that no specific standard has been fixed by the rule-making authority in Appendix B with regard to ajowan as such it has next to be considered whether sale or possession of adulterated ajowan by any person is an offence within the meaning of the Act. Mr. Dwarakeswara Rao argued that if no standard has been fixed with regard to any article of food, any sale of such article cannot be punished, because it is not possible to held whether he has committed an offence or not, and placed reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in In re, K.S. Ambi Iyer1. In that case, the accused proprietor of a coffee hotel, was prosecuted for selling an adulterated sweetmeat called ‘Kajoor’ which was found to contain 80 per cent, of fat not derived from milk or cream. In that case, the accused proprietor of a coffee hotel, was prosecuted for selling an adulterated sweetmeat called ‘Kajoor’ which was found to contain 80 per cent, of fat not derived from milk or cream. As there was no standard prescribed for the fat content, the Madras High Court acquitted the accused holding that so long as there is no separate standard of composition or quality fixed for the sweetmeat prescribing a certain percentage of ghee, the conviction cannot stand. In that case, the Public Prosecutor has conceded. That apart the case relates to a sweetmeat prepared out of ghee which was one of the ingredients for its preparation and the standard of fat that should contain in ghee cannot be taken to be the standard for the sweetmeat in question. Hence this case does not render much assistance to the accused. In Deo Mitra v. Rex and another2, the Allahabad High Court, while considering the sale of vinegar which was found to be adulterated for which no standard has been fixed under the U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, has held that it cannot be said that the accused had not committed an offence under section 4 in respect of that article of food although no standard of purity of vinegar has been fixed by the Government under section 14 (1) of that Act. Seth, J., at page 36, observed: “The question for consideration in this case for the learned Sessions Judge was whether the accused Deo Mitra had sold an article not of the nature, substance or quality of which it purported to be and the question for his consideration was not whether it was one of the articles in respect of which the Government had made rules under section 14 (1) of the Act.” In the Public Prosecutor v. Sannidhi Sriranganayakulu3, while considering the sale of honey mixed with cane sugar, inrespect of which no separate standard has been fixed by rules under section 20 (1) (c) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1918, Rajagopalan, J., at page 630, observed: “If no such rules were framed, the only reasonable inference could be that honey of an absolute purity had to be sold, unless what was sold or offered to be sold was represented to the purchaser to be not honey, but honey with an admixture of cane sugar......The absence of rules in no way affects the liability of the accused for punishment under section 5 (1) (d).” Any act of adulteration and sale of any adulterated article of food as provided under the provisions of the Act, is an offence within the meaning of the Act and persons who commit such offences, are liable to be punished as per the provisions of the Act. A combined reading of the provisions of section 2 read with section 16 does not lead to an irresistible inference that unless a standard is fixed by the rules with regard to any article of food, the sale of such article of food, if adulterated, cannot be sought to be punished under the provisions of the Act. No doubt the rule-making authority has prescribed certain standards in respect of some of the article, of food which are normally considered by the said authority as being adulterated and sold. It is no doubt for the concerned authorities and for the Courts to follow the rules and the standards when prescribed, for the purpose of ascertaining whether a particular article of food has been adulterated or not. It is no doubt for the concerned authorities and for the Courts to follow the rules and the standards when prescribed, for the purpose of ascertaining whether a particular article of food has been adulterated or not. Where no standard atall has been fixed for any article of food for reasons not known, it cannot be said, if any such article of food is found to have been adulterated and sold, that such act are taken out of the purview of the provisions of the Act exempting such persons from being punished as per the provisions of the Act. The intention of the Legislature must have been to punish every person who sells or attempts to sell any adulterated article of food, irrespective of the fact whether the same was capable of being used for different purposes if the same is ordinarily or usually used as an article of food and even though no particular standard has been prescribed in respect of the same. Otherwise it comes to that in cases where a particular article of food has not been mentioned in the Appendix B prescribing a particular standard such article can be adulterated and sold to the public as if it is not an offence. The relevant provisions of the Act and Rules must be construed reasonably and harmoniously so as to bring in as far as possible the intention of the framers of the Act and rules which have been specifically made in this Act, keeping in view the interests of the public and public health as its paramount object. In the circumstances, I hold that therefore the absence of prescribing a particular standard in Appendix B does not entitle the accused, who had sold an article of food which is found to be adulterated, for an acquittal. In the present case, P.W. 3 the mediator, in his cross-examination, admits that he found the article of food sold as a good variety of ‘vamu’. P.W. 1 in his cross-examination, states that he did not know the standard raised for ‘vamu’ nor was it enumerated in the articles of food mentioned in Appendix B. P.W. 2 admits that he did not know the permissible extent of ash in ‘vamu ‘and he did not ascertain from the A.P.P. the permissible limit of ash in the sample. In this state of affairs, it appears that even P.Ws. In this state of affairs, it appears that even P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are the Food Inspectors were not aware of the real standard of the food article ‘vamu’ and the accused was under the bonafidt impression that the ‘vamu’ being sold by him was a good one as admitted by P. W. 3 the mediator. Further, all the incriminating circumstances have not been put to the accused when he was examined. In the circumstances, I find that there is no valid or justifiable ground to interfere in this appeal against acquittal. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. G.S.M. ------ Appeal dismissed.