S.S. Dewan, J. - (1.) This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to the sale of ladoos by the petitioner to the Food Inspector for analysis. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was found to contain insect fragments and black spots on some of the pieces. The petitioner sought quashing the proceedings against him which are pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barnala, on a complaint instituted on behalf of the Food Inspector under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter called the Act). It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that mere insect-infestation does not make an article of food adulterated in terms of sub-clause (f) of clause (i) of Sec. 2 of the Act unless the article is also unfit for human consumption, as in the report of the Public Analyst on the basis of which a complaint was instituted, it was not mentioned that the article of food besides being insect infested was also unfit for human consumption. It was submitted that even if the allegations contained in the complaint were taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no offence under section 7 of the Act was made out. To butteress his argument, the learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Kacheroo Mal, AIR 1976 SC 394 wherein it was observed : "The phrase "or is otherwise unfit for human consumption" in Sec. 2(i)(f) has to be read conjunctively and not disjunctively. The adjectives "filthy", "putrid, "disgusting", "decomposed", "rotten" "insect-infested" refer to thequality of the article and furnish the indicia for persuing the article to be unfit for human consumption. But the presumption may not be conclusive in all cases, irrespective of the character of the article, and the nature and extent of the vice afflicting it. This is particularly so, where an article is found to be insect-infested. In each case it must be proved that the article was unfit for human consumption. In the case of articles for which the Rules lay down any minimum standard of purity with reference to any of the vices specified in this sub-clause; mere proof of the fact that the impurity was in excess of that countenanced by the prescribed standard, would be conclusive to show that the article was unfit for human consumption." At this stage clause (i) of Sec. 2 of the act which gives the definition of "adulterated" may be read. The definition is as follows : "(i)(a) "adulterated" - an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated - (a) if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be ; (b) if the article contains any other substance which affects, or if the article is so processed as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof. (c) if any inferior or cheaper substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the articles so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof; (d) If any constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted so as to affect injuriously the nature substance or quality thereof; (e) if the article had been prepared, packed or kept under insanitary conditions whereby it has become contaminated or injurious to health : (f) if the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption : It is manifest from the definition that the word adulterated is rather wide. Even if an article of food does not fall under one of the sub-clauses, it may still be adulterated if any other sub-clause of the definition is applicable. So far as sub-clause (f) is concerned, an article of food is to be deemed to be adulterated if the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the words "or is otherwise unfit for human consumption" as appearing in sub-clause (f) of clause (i) of Sec. 2 of the Act have been used disjunctively and, therefore, the article of food which is insect-infested to some extent even though fit for human consumption has still to be regarded as adulterated under this sub clause. For the same reason it is urged that an article of food which consists wholly or in part of any animal or vegetable substance which may be filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased, is also to be admitted to be adulterated irrespective of the fact whether the article is fit or unfit for human consumption. The learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Tek Chand Bhatia, 1980 Cri LJ 316 wherein Their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to a decision in Kacheroo Mals case (supra) and noted that the decision in that case was distinguishable inasmuch as there was, in that case, no evidence that the cashew nuts which were insect-infested to the extent of 21.9% were unfit for human consumption. However, in case Tek Chand Bhatia (supra), it was held : "In the definition clause, the collocation of words filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed and insect-infested which are adjectives qualifying the term an article of food, show that it is not of the nature, substance and quality fit for human consumption. It will be noticed that there is a comma after each of the first three words. It should also be noted that these qualifying adjectives cannot be read into the last portion of the definition i.e., the words or is otherwise unfit for human consumption, which is quite separate and distinct from others. The word otherwise signify unfitness for human consumption due to other causes. If the last portion is meant to mean something different, it becomes difficult to understand how the word or as used in the definition of adulterated in Sec. 2(i)(f) between filthy, putrid, rotten etc. and otherwise unlit for human consumption could have been intended to be used conjunctively. It would be more appropriate in the context to read it disjunctively. Various categories of adulterated food mentioned in Sec. 2(1)(f) broadly fall into two kinds of adulteration; firstly, where the constituent elements make the food obnoxious to human health or the existence of the particular composition of it, itself makes the food adulterated, and secondly, where the adulteration is constituted by the fact that the prescribed standard has not been observed in selling what purports to be a food of that standard or quality. We really fail to comprehend why the mere proof of an article of food like decomposed or diseased meat or rotten fish or putrid fruits and vegetables by the condition of the article itself should not be sufficient to attract the definition of adulterated contained in Sec. 2(1)(f) and further proof ofunfitness of the article for human consumption is still necessary for bringing home the guilt." In view of the proposition of law laid down above it is apparent that it is for the trial court to decide upon the evidence in the case whether the insect-infestation found was of such a nature and extent as to make it unfit for human consumption. In exercising its jurisdiction under section 482 the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Courts inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence, the accusation made against an accused would not be sustained. The proceedings cannot, therefore, be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It will be for the trial Magistrate to appreciate the evidence that is to be produced and then to decide the point in issue keeping in view what I have stated about the scope of sub-clause (f) of clause (i) of Sec. 2 of the Act whether the charge against the petitioner has been proved or not. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner should appear in the trial Court on Dec. 8, 1980. The Trial Magistrate shall try to expedite the disposal of the case as it has already been considerably delayed. Petition dismissed.;