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, Rose. 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 for 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 some what elastic expression 'foodstuff' turmeric and such other condiments as the Legislature intends to be treated as such for achieving the objects in its view.

(2.) THE respondent was charged with having contravened Cl. (3) of the Order of 1944 because he entered into a forward contract in turmeric at Sangli on March 18, 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. 1,000 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.

(3.) IT will be necessary to trace the history of this legislation. In the year 1944 the then Central Government of India promulgated the Spices (Forward Contracts Prohibition Order, 1944, under Rule 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules. Clauses (2) and (3) read together prohibited forward contracts in any of the 'spices' specified in the first column of the schedule to that Order. Among the articles listed in the schedule was turmeric. The conviction is under that Order, and it is admitted that if that Order is still valid, the conviction would be good.