- (1.)The charge against the accused was that he had adulterated an article of food and so committed an offence punishable under S. 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 which reads:
"7. No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture lor sale, or store, sell, or distribute- (i) any adulterated food;"

(2.)P. W. 1 Shivappa gave evidence that he purchased 600 gms. of a substance called long bason from the accused and that its analysis revealed that the substance so purchased was an admixture oi long bason and Kesari Dal. The report of the analyst establishes beyond doubt that what was sold by the accused to P. W. 1 was adulterated long bason. But S. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act punishes adulteration of food and not the adulteration of other substances, and, food is defined by S. 2 (v) of the Act thus: "(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, and (b) any flavouring matter or condiments.' So, unless the substance which is adulterated is a substance used as food or drink for human consumption, the adulteration is not an offence under S. 7 of the Act.
(3.)P. W. 1 admitted that long bason is used for the same purpose for which soap-nut powder was used and that it was also used as cattle feed. He gave no evidence that long bason is used for human consumption. That being so, the essential ingredient, the establishment of which is imperative under S. 7 of the Act, did not exist in the present case.
;