STATE OF U.P. Vs. SHRI RAM GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are four State appeals against orders of acquittal of the respective Respondents in these appeals Under Sec. 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) In Cr. As. Nos. 394, 395 and 750, the stuff purchased by the Food Inspector was coloured edible tobacco which is commonly known as Zarda and which is used in Paan. In Cr. A. 107, the Respondents had refused to sell coloured edible tobacco on demand by the Food Inspector. The tobacco purchased was analysed by the Public Analyst who found that the colour used was coaltar dye, Metallic Yellow, use of which dye in food stuffs is prohibited by law. On the launching of prosecutions, the Respondents in the first three criminal appeals pleaded that tobacco was not "food" within the meaning of Sec. 2(v) of the Act and therefore, they had not committed any offence. In the fourth appeal, the defence taken was that since tobacco was not food, therefore, refusal to sell it would not be refusal to sell "food" and Sec. 16 of the Act would be inapplicable. The learned Magistrates trying these four criminal cases, relied upon the decision in Abdul Karim v/s. State, 1968 AWR 229 wherein Seth, J. had held that tobacco was not food and accordingly they ordered the acquittal of the Respondents in all the four criminal cases. The State filed Cr. As. 394, 395 and 750 straightaway. The District Medical Officer of Health filed a criminal revision against the order of acquittal in the fourth criminal case, but that revision was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, on the ground aforesaid and it is thereafter that the State filed Cr. A. 107 , 1969. Cr. As. 394, 395 and 107 came up before G.S.L. Srivastava, J. who took the view that Abdul Karim's case required reconsideration. Cr. A. 750 came up before Jagmohan Lal, J. who observed that since the other three appeals had been referred to a Division Bench, therefore, that appeal should also go before that Bench. The matter was then heard by a Division Bench (G.S.L. Srivastava and Jagmohan Lal, JJ.). The two learned Judges, however, differed, G.S. Lal Srivastava, J. holding that tobacco was food, while Jagmohan Lal, J. taking the view that it was not food. On this difference of opinion, the matter has been placed before me by the Chief Justice.

(3.) The term "food" has been defined by Sec. 2(v) of the Act thus: