Introduction

In the landmark case of Uppara Veerendra v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, decided by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on December 28, 2021, the court addressed a significant legal question pertaining to the classification of chewing tobacco under Indian law. The petitioner sought the quashing of numerous First Information Reports (F.I.Rs) registered against him and others for offenses related to the sale, transportation, and possession of banned tobacco products. Central to the case was the interpretation of whether "chewing tobacco" falls within the definition of "food" as stipulated in Section 3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act).

Summary of the Judgment

The Andhra Pradesh High Court meticulously examined the definitions and legislative intent behind the FSS Act. The court concluded that "chewing tobacco" does not constitute "food" under Section 3(1)(j) of the FSS Act. Consequently, the F.I.Rs registered under the provisions of the FSS Act for offenses related to chewing tobacco were deemed invalid and were quashed. The judgment underscored that the primary purpose of the FSS Act is to regulate substances intended for human consumption for sustenance and nourishment, distinguishing them from products like chewing tobacco, which are used as stimulants and not for nourishment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court referenced several pivotal cases to support its decision:

• Sri. Jaganath Enterprises Eluru v. State of A.P. (Crl.P. No. 5421 of 2019) - Affirmed that chewing tobacco does not fall under the definition of "food."
• Mohammad Yamin Naeem Mohammad v. State of Maharashtra (2021 SCC OnLine Bom 26) - While contended by the prosecution to classify chewing tobacco as food, this was not upheld by the court.
• Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange (1974) 1 SCC 167 - Differentiated between food items and stimulants like chewing tobacco.
• Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 7 SCC 68 - Clarified that pan masala is considered food if intended for human consumption.
• Sakhawat Ali v. State of Orissa AIR 1955 SC 166 - Highlighted the legislature's discretion in defining categories within a statute.
• Sanjay Anjay Stores v. The Union Of India & Ors. 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 16323 - A Calcutta High Court decision stating tobacco products are not classified as food under the FSS Act.
• ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee (2002) 9 SCC 232 - Apex Court noted that tobacco is not a foodstuff in the context of taxation.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court embarked on a detailed analysis of the statutory definition of "food" under Section 3(1)(j) of the FSS Act:

• Definition Examination: The court dissected the definition, noting the three-part structure encompassing substances intended for human consumption, inclusive categories, and explicit exclusions.
• Intent for Consumption: Emphasizing the phrase "intended for human consumption," the court determined that substances meant for sustenance and nourishment qualify as food.
• Nature of Chewing Tobacco: Chewing tobacco was analyzed as a stimulant, not a nutritional intake, and thus not intended for human consumption in the context of nourishment.
• Legislative Intent: Highlighting that the omission of chewing tobacco from the "food" definition signifies legislative intent to exclude it.
• User Test Application: The court applied the "user test" to ascertain the intended use of chewing tobacco, further supporting its exclusion from the food category.
• Regulatory Support: Citing Regulation 2.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011, the court noted that tobacco and nicotine are prohibited as food ingredients.

The court also addressed and refuted arguments suggesting that, similar to chewing gum—which is classified as food—chewing tobacco should also be considered food. It delineated the fundamental differences in intent and usage between the two products.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for the enforcement of the FSS Act in relation to tobacco products:

• Clarification of Definitions: Provides a clear interpretation of "food" under the FSS Act, aiding in future legal determinations.
• Regulatory Enforcement: Limits the scope of the FSS Act in regulating products not intended for human consumption as food, ensuring that only relevant F.I.Rs are pursued.
• Legislative Boundaries: Reinforces the principle that courts should respect legislative definitions and intents, avoiding judicial overreach.
• Precedential Value: Sets a binding precedent for lower courts and future cases dealing with similar matters, enhancing consistency in judicial decisions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Definition of "Food" under FSS Act

According to Section 3(1)(j) of the FSS Act, "food" encompasses any substance intended for human consumption, including processed and unprocessed items. However, it explicitly excludes certain substances like animal feed, drugs, cosmetics, and narcotic or psychotropic substances unless declared otherwise by the Central Government.

"Intended for Human Consumption"

This phrase implies that the primary purpose of the substance is for sustenance, nourishment, or to maintain life and growth. It does not include substances used for stimulatory or recreational purposes.

User Test

The user test examines how the typical consumer uses a product to determine its classification. In this case, chewing tobacco is used as a stimulant rather than for nourishment, thereby excluding it from the "food" category.

Legislative Intent

Legislative intent refers to the purpose behind a law's enactment. Courts interpret statutes by considering not just the literal text but also the legislative objectives to avoid misinterpretation.

Conclusion

The Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment in Uppara Veerendra v. State Of Andhra Pradesh decisively clarified that "chewing tobacco" does not fall within the definition of "food" under Section 3(1)(j) of the FSS Act. By meticulously analyzing statutory definitions, legislative intent, and relevant precedents, the court upheld the validity of previous decisions that excluded chewing tobacco from the category of food. This ruling not only quashed the contentious F.I.Rs under the FSS Act but also reinforced the principle that judicial interpretations must align with legislative definitions and objectives. The judgment serves as a crucial reference point for future cases involving the classification of substances under the FSS Act and underscores the necessity of precise statutory interpretation in upholding the rule of law.