Tobacco is not food under the Food Safety law, so IPC charges based on that premise cannot stand.

Tobacco or ghutka is not "food" within the inclusive definition in Section 3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, because the definition does not extend to every substance intended for chewing. Tobacco, even in processed or additive form, is not ordinarily an article used for taste or nourishment. The article notes that tobacco is regulated under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, but does not fall within the Food Safety and Standards Act. On that basis, it states that cognizance for offences under Sections 272 and 273 read with Section 34 IPC, premised on tobacco being food, was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether seized ghutka or tobacco is a "food" within the meaning of Section 3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 so as to attract Sections 272 and 273 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the cognizance taken for offences under Sections 272 and 273 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court examined the statutory definition of "food" in Section 3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and held that the inclusive definition does not automatically convert every substance intended for chewing into food. Tobacco, even in processed or additive form, is not ordinarily an article of food used for taste or nourishment. The Court accepted the view that tobacco is covered by the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, but does not fall within the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Conclusion: Ghutka or tobacco is not a food product for the purpose of Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and cognizance on that basis was unsustainable.

---