JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 01/09/1998 passed in C/II Case No. 766/98 under Sections 16(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and also for quashing of the order dated 05/09/2003 dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner against the said order of taking cognizance. 3. The facts in short are that a complaint as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application was lodged by the Respondent No. 2, Food Inspector, against, the petitioners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur alleging therein that the complainant Food Inspector visited the shop namely M/S Prince situated at 6, Natraj Mansion, Main Road, Bishtupur, Jamshedpur, the owner of which were the petitioners and purchased a Feeding Bottle from the saidshop for chemical analysis and thereafter it was sent for analysis and according to the report of the Public Analyst the said Feeding Bottle was found to be not fulfilling/conforming to the specification laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. On the basis of the said complaint, the cognizance of the offence under Section 16(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 01/09/1998. Against the said order of taking cognizance the petitioners filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge, which was heard by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, who vide his order dated 05/09/2003 dismissed the said revision application. Now by filing this writ application, the petitioners have challenged the order taking cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the order passed by the Revisional Court dismissing the revision application. 4. The main point to be decided in the present case as to whether the Feeding Bottle, which was alleged to have been purchased by the Food Inspector from the shop of the petitioners comes within the definition of food so as to come within the purview of provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 5. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was enacted to make Provisions for Prevention of Adulteration of Food. 5. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was enacted to make Provisions for Prevention of Adulteration of Food. Food, which comes within the purview of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is defined under Section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which reads as under: 2(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. 6. From a bare perusal of the definition of food as enumerated above, it is abundantly clear that in order to bring an article within the meaning of food defined under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 the first and foremost prerequisite condition is that the said article must be of nature which is ordinarily used for human consumption or is used in the composition or preparation of human food. 7. In the present case as it appears from the complaint petition itself, admittedly a feeding bottle was purchased from the shop of the petitioners and the allegation is that the feeding bottle was not conforming to the specification laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. By no stretch of imagination a feeding bottle can be termed as a food, which is generally used for human consumption. It is really surprising as to how the Food Inspector has brought the feeding bottle in the category of articles of food. A feeding bottle certainly cannot and does not come within the definition of Food so as to come within the purview of Food Adulteration Act. 8. In view of the above discussions and findings, I hold that the prosecution of the petitioners for the allegation that they have committed an offence punishable under Section 16(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is absolutely illegal and an abuse of the process of the Court. 9. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The order taking cognizance dated 01/09/1998 as well as the entire criminal prosecution against the petitioners being C/II Case No. 766/98 and also the order dated 05/09/2003 passed by the Revisional Court are hereby quashed.