- (1.) S. N. Saxena, J. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) THE revisionists have preferred this revision application against the order dated 20-1-1995 of the learned M. M. 1st Kanpur whereby he rejected their preliminary objection that 'pan Masala' was not covered by the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and, therefore, the trial of the revisionists under Section 7/16 of the Act was not maintain able. THE revisionists, who are facing prosecution before the said court for adulteration of 'pan Masala', had contended that it was neither "food" nor a "food product" and, therefore, the trial was not maintainable. It is not necessary at this stage to give other details as the same are not rele vant. THE lower court, under the circumstances, held that the trial was maintainable. The revision application of the revisionists was based upon a Division Bench decision of this Court, dated 27-7-1995 of which I was also a member wherein for the purposes of the Excise Act, the following finding, besides so many other findings, was returned:- "pan Masala and other products of like nature are neither food nor food products or food preparation. . . . . . . . . . " After going through the impugned order of the learned lower court, I fun that the preliminary objection of the revisionists was rightly overruled by him.
(3.) THE observations made in the aforesaid Division Bench case were not relevant so far as the prosecution of the revisionists under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was concerned. THE learned lower court has given very sound and convincing reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the preliminary objection was devoid of merits and I also do not find any reason whatsoever to take & contrary view of the matter. Section 2 (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 defines 'food' and clause (b) thereof reads as follows:- "any flavouring matter or condiments". 'pan Masala' contained a number of condiments and flavoring matter which then mixed together resulted in the product known as 'pan Masala'. It is, thus, a produce squarely covered by the aforesaid definition. Different acts enacted for different purposes and interpretations in regard to the provisions of the Excise Act hardly carried any weight so far as the interpretation of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulterations Act, 1954 was concerned and due to the said observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, it would not at all be proper to hold that 'pan Masala' was a substance which was not covered by Section 2 (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. If the sample of the 'pan Masala' was found adulterated, the revisionists certainly could be prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.;