MOIDU Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR ERNAKULAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cases were heard together as the questions raised are identical.

(2.) Original Petition No. 2215 of 1963 also arises from a case of concurrent conviction for the same offence. There is the further fact that a criminal revision petition filed by the accused before this court was dismissed after hearing the petitioner's counsel, without issuing notice to the respondent. The original petition has been preferred by the accused after dismissal of the criminal revision petition and this has given rise to a preliminary objection that the original petition is not maintainable. The adulterated article was lozenges coloured by non permitted coal tar dye. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 & in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further term of three months.

(3.) Two points are raised in both the cases. The first is that the banning of colouring matter other than those permitted is arbitrary and an unreasonable restriction on a citizen's fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade or business. That the articles seized in the two cases contained coal tar dye the use of which is prohibited by the rules was not disputed. The argument is that the prohibition is bad in law.