SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE accused are charged for committing offence punishable U/s 7 (i) r/w. sec. 2 (ia) and (m) punishable u/s. 16 (i) (a) (i) of the P. F. A. Act 1954 and P. F. A. Rules, 1955. ( 2 ) THE prosecution is launched on the basis of the private complaint of the Food Inspector. A. 3 was found selling ice creams in a public place at a shandy fare. The Food Inspector purchased ice cream cup on payment of money and issued a receipt. The product purchased was split into three parts. One part was handed over to A. 3, the other part was retained by the complainant, the third part was sent to public analyst. The report of the public analyst disclose that the ice cream contains total solids 33. 16%, milk fat 6. 5%, artificial sweetening agent not detected protein 3. 64%. In Appendix-B at A. 11. 02. 08 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 the statutory standard prescribed are as follows: ( 3 ) THE ice cream product shall contain not less am 10. 0% milk fat 3. 5% protein, 36. 0 percent of total solids. ( 4 ) THE Public Analyst's report states that the ice cream is adulterated and not in conformity with the standards stated above. ( 5 ) A. 3 is absconding. The case against A. 3 is split up. A. 1 and A. 2 are tried for the above offence. ( 6 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that the ice cream in question is manufactured by M/s. Shetty ice Cream Co-A. 1 and A. 2 is the proprietor of the company. A. 3 is said to be the agent selling the ice creams. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not prove that the ice creams sold by A. 3 are the one manufactured by A. 1 and A. 2 and thus acquitted the accused. The order of acquittal is sound and proper, does not call for interference. ( 7 ) THE Ice cream although a fancy edible is largely consumed by the populace living in humid, hot and dry climate by the populace as a socur for parching throats. The edible and non-edible items sold in the Indian market conditions normally may not be of uniform standard and quality. There are products with first quality, second quality and so on. The edible and non-edible items sold in the Indian market conditions normally may not be of uniform standard and quality. There are products with first quality, second quality and so on. The products of second quality or lesser quality in the edible items are cheap cost wise and may not be hazardous to health. The ice cream product, is one such item manufactured and sold by- big companies offering best quality confirming to the standards prescribed under the P. F. A. act but they are costly. There are small time local manufacturers who sell second/lesser quality for a cheaper rate. The ice cream of the local manufacturers may not be best quality but not necessarily a health hazard. Normally people belonging to economically lower sections of the society are their consumers who are conscious of the fact that the ice cream sold is not the best and first quality but will chose to purchase to relish the experience of the ice cream eating within their financial capacity. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the local manufacturers selling ice cream could be held guilty of an offence punishable under P. F. A. Act. ( 8 ) THE time is belatedly ripe to have relook at the standards prescribed defining as adulteration with regard to the edible, unless the products sold is a health hazard merely because it does not conform to the standards of best quality, the proprietors and manufacturers should not be subjected to unnecessary harassment of prosecution and punishment. ( 9 ) THERE is a change in the mindset of the people to go for food items with less or no fat content. The fat content prescribed for ice cream under the P. F. A. Act is too high and may not be a desirable diet in the modem times. The second quality ice cream with lesser fat content would be advisable medically than an ice cream with rich fat content. For the reasons and discussions made above, the appeal is dismissed. --- *** --- .