- (1.) These two writ petitions raise common questions and are being decided together. Homoeopathic dilutions and tinctures were seized from the possession of the petitioners of these two writ petitions. This seizure has been challenged on the ground that the respondents had no authority under law to make the said seizure. Some questions which were raised in these two writ petitions were also raised in Vir Narain Tyagi v. State of U.P. (AIR 1978 All 490). In view of the decision of Vir Narain's case (supra), the learned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed those points and in our opinion rightly. Those points stand decided by the said case.
(2.) What has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was no provision entitling the respondents to seize the Homoeopathic dilutions and tinctures from the possession of the petitioners. For the respondents it has been urged that the Homoeopathic dilutions and tinctures fell within the definition of the term "spirituous preparations" as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Spirituous Preparations (Inter-State Trade and Commerce) Control Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to an Act No. 39 of 1955) and that since the petitioners were found in possession of these Homoeopathic dilutions and tinctures which fell within the definition of "spirituous preparations," it was a case covered by Section 11 of Act No. 39 of 1955. There was a presumption, unless proved to the contrary by the petitioners, that they had committed an offence under the said Act or Rules made thereunder in respect of "spirituous preparations" possessed by them and seized from their custody. According to the respondents the petitioners had not obtained any licence contemplated by Section 3 of the said Act and Rules framed thereunder for import of Homoeopathic dilutions and tinctures in their possession. By importing the same they have consequently committed an offence under Act No. 39 of 1955 and in this view of the matter the respondents were entitled to seize these Homoeopathic dilutions and tinctures by virtue of the power conferred on them by Section 8 of the Act No. 39 of 1955.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that there is substance in the submission made by the Standing Counsel for the respondents. In view of the definition of the term of "Spirituous Preparations" contained in Section 2 (d) of Act No. 39 of 1955 and the decision of this Court in Vir Narain's case (AIR 1978 All 490) (supra), we have no doubt that Homoeopathic dilutions and tinctures seized from the possession of the petitioners fell within the definition of the term "Spirituous Preparations" as contained in Section 2 (d) of the aforesaid Act. The respondents in the absence of any proof to the contrary were entitled to raise the presumption contained in Section 11 of Act No. 39 of 1955. No material on the record of these two writ petitions has been brought to our notice by the counsel for the petitioners to indicate that the Homoeopathic dilutions and tinctures seized by the respondents were imported by the petitioners prior to the commencement of Act No. 39 of 1955. In this view of the matter the provisions of Section 8 of the Act No. 39 of 1955 were on the face of it attracted to the facts of these two cases.;