CHUNILAL MOTIRAM TAMAKUWALA Vs. M B SHELAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two criminal revision applications raise the same questions for our determination. The facts pertaining to these two applications are similar and they were argued together. Hence we shall dispose of them by this common judgment.

(2.) In Criminal Revision Application No. 293 of 1969 the facts are that the Food Inspector of Surat Municipal Corporation visited the shop of the petitioner and seized bottles containing material described as Kashmir Madhu. The seizure of the bottles was made in the presence of two panchas. The seizure was effected because according to the Food Inspector the petitioner was selling the bottles as honey though in fact the bottles did not contain honey. The petitioner was thus selling the bottles in Contravention of Rule 45 of the Rules made under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Food Inspector then filed an application No. I of 1968 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Municipality) Surat producing the bottles which he had seized and requesting the Court to take proper action in respect of the said bottles. The learned Magistrate then issued a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner filed his written statement admitting that the bottles were seized by the Food Inspector from his shop. The petitioner contended that the bottles did no contain honey. The bottles seized did not fall within the definition of the word food as defined in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The bottles seized contained Ayurved medicine and therefore the contents thereof were not honey but were drug.

(3.) In Criminal Revision Application No. 294 of 1969 the Food Inspector seized bottles labeled as Kashmir Madhu. The Food Inspector took possession one of the bottles and the rest were allowed to remain with the petitioner No. 2 after a bond was taken from him. The Food Inspector thereafter filed an application No. 2 of 1968 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Municipality) Surat alleging that he had seized the bottles labeled Kashmir Madhu from the shop of the No. 2. The bottles were sold as honey though in fact they did not contain honey. The bottles were seized by the Food Inspector in presence of the panchas. The Food Inspector requested the Court to pass proper orders with respect to the articles he had seized. The notice was served on the petitioner No. 1 who was the proprietor of Comet Fruits and Chemical Industries and the petitioner No. 2 from whose shop the bottles were seized. Both the petitioners filed their written statements contending that the bottles did not contain honey and that it contained Ayurved medicine and therefore the contents of the bottles were not the article of food as contemplated by the definition of the word food given in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate on the applications of the Food Inspectors ordered that the sample produced before the Court be sent for analysis to the Public Analyst.