STATE OF BOMBAY Vs. VIRKUMAR GULABCHAND SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I agree that the acquittal of the respondent should not be disturbed, and I also agree generally with the reasoning of my brother, Bose. The question whether turmeric is 'foodstuff' is not entirely free from difficulty. In one sense, everything which enters into the composition of food so as to make it palatable may be described as 'foodstuff', but that word is commonly used with reference only to those articles which are eaten of their nutritive value and which form the principal ingredients of cooked or uncooked meal, such as wheat, rice, meat, fish, milk ,bread, butter, etc. It seems to me desirable that the Act should be amended so as to expressly include within the definition of the somewhat elastic expression 'foodstuff', turmeric as such other condiments as the Legislature intends to be treated as such for achieving the object in its view.

(2.) BOSE J.- The question in this case is whether turmeric is a "foodstuff" within the meaning of clause 3 of the Spices (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order, 1944, read with section 2 (a) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (Act XXIV of 1946).

(3.) The respondent was charged with having contravened clause 3 of the Order of 1944 because he entered into a forward contract in turmeric at Sangli on the 18th of March 1950 in contravention of clause 3 of the Order. He was convicted by the trial Court and sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default, a further three months. But he was acquitted on appeal by the Sessions Court. An appeal to the High Court against the acquittal failed.