JUDGMENT K.B. Srivastava, J. - These are four State appeals against orders of acquittal of the respective Respondents in these appeals u/s 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 tobacoo 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 Section 2(v) of the Act and therefore, they had not committed any offence. In the fourth appeal, the defence taken was that since tobacoo was not food, therefore, refusal to sell it would not be refusal to sell "food" and Section 16 of the Act would be inapplicable. The learned Magistrates trying these four criminal cases, relied upon the decision in Abdul Karim v. State 1968 AWR 229 wherein Seth, J. had held that tobacoo 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. 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 Section 2(v) of the Act thus: Section 2(v) "food" means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes- (a) any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of human food, and (b) any flavouring matter or condiments;.... 4. The interpretation clause uses both the words "means" and "includes". It is a well-known rule of interpretation that the word "includes" is used as a word of enlargement and ordinarily implies that something else has been given beyond the general language which precedes it; to add to the general clause a species which does not naturally belong to it. Again, the Legislature uses the word "means" when it wants to exhaust the significance of the term defined and the word "includes" where it intends that while the term defined should retain its ordinary meaning, its scope should be widened by specific enumeration of certain matters which its ordinary meaning may or may not comprise so as to make the definition enumerative but not exhaustive. ' The use of the word "means" shows that the definition is a hard and fast definition and that no other meaning can be assigned to the expression than is put in the definition. See Maxwell on. the Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edition, p. 270; Emperor v. Jiand AIR 1928 Sind 149 and (Thakur) Bilas Singh Vs. Emperor . The main interpretation clause of Section 2(v) of the Act is, therefore, restrictive while the inclusive Clauses (a) and (b) are enumerative. 5. It is necessary now to find out if Zarda is "food" within the ambit of the main interpretation clause. The words that require attention are (1) "used", (2) "as" and (3) "food". Emperor . The main interpretation clause of Section 2(v) of the Act is, therefore, restrictive while the inclusive Clauses (a) and (b) are enumerative. 5. It is necessary now to find out if Zarda is "food" within the ambit of the main interpretation clause. The words that require attention are (1) "used", (2) "as" and (3) "food". It is a well-known rule of law that words should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense given in standard dictionaries or Law Lexicons and this ordinary sense can be departed from only if the departure leads to the proper interpretation of the will of the Legislature. The word "used" must be taken to mean "consumed" or "devoured" or "drunk". With regard to the word "as", the following occurs in Corpus Juris Secondum, Vol. 6, page 780: In its adverbial sense, the word has been defined as meaning in like manner, in the manner in which, in the same manner, like, of the same kind, similar to. According to Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1933 Edition, page 104, the word "as" means: In that way (in which) The conjoint meaning of the two words "used" and "as", is consumed or drunk in the manner in which food is consumed or drunk, that is to say, masticated and swellowed or gulped down. I now come to the significance and import of the word "food." In Corpus Juris Secondum Vol. 36-A, page 771, there is a mention that "food is that which is eaten or drunk for nourishment.... In food statutes the term usually includes all articles used for food or drink by man...whether simple, mixed, or compound." In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Vol. 1, what is stated is that food is what one takes into the system to maintain life and growth and to supply waste; aliment, nourishment, victuals. In the Encyclopaedia Britanica, Vol. 9, food is the general term for what is eaten by man and other creatures for the. sustenance of life. In the ordinary sense, therefore, food is an article which is consumed or drunk for the maintenance and growth of life. It cannot be denied that it is in this sense in which the Legislature has used this word in the main interpretation clause. sustenance of life. In the ordinary sense, therefore, food is an article which is consumed or drunk for the maintenance and growth of life. It cannot be denied that it is in this sense in which the Legislature has used this word in the main interpretation clause. When a word or phrase is defined as having a particular meaning in an enactment, it is that meaning and that meaning alone which must be given to it in interpretation of a section of the Act, unless there be anything repugnant in the context. Now, tobacco is not 'used as food' by man for sustenance and growth of the human body. I am, therefore, certain that it is not food within the ambit of the main clause. In this regard I am in respectful agreement with Malik, J. in M/s. Khedan Lal and Sons v. The State of U.P. 1970 AWR 239 . The next question is whether the concept of food has been widened or enlarged by either or both of the inclusive Clauses (a) and (b). Clause (a) says that "food" includes any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of human food. The words which will require consideration in this clause are (1) ordinarily, (2) enters into, (3) composition and (4) preparation. In the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, Vol. II, page 1382, the meaning attached to the word "ordinarily" is "as a matter of regular court; in most cases; usually, commonly; as is normal or usual." In Corpus Juris Secondum, Vol. 67, the meaning imputed is: usual; common, normal; regular; conforming to general order; common in recurrence; often recurring. The antonym is extraordinary, unusual or uncommon. Chambers Dictionary assigns the meaning "according to common order; usual;" In Pulla Ranganavakula, In re, 1956 AWR 456 Subba Rao, C.J. observed that the word "ordinarily" means habitually and not casually and it cannot obviously mean "always" and Chandra Reddy, J. held that the plain and popular meaning of the word "ordinarily" is usually, normally and not exceptionally as contrastive with extraordinarily. In Kailash Chandra Vs. In Kailash Chandra Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 1961 SC 1346 their Lordships of the Supreme Court said that "ordinarily means in the large majority of cases but not invariably." The observations of their Lordships of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Supreme Court are in connection with the word "ordinarily" as used in different enactments. Nevertheless, the general popular sense will have application in the instant case also. In Municipal Board, Kanpur v. Janki Prasad 1963 AWR 73 , Jagdish Sahai, J. speaking for the majority, made the following observation with regard to the word 'ordinarily': In our opinion it is in the sense of non-exceptional or usual that the word 'ordinarily' has been used in Section 2(v) of the Act. The word 'ordinarily' does not mean "primarily" nor does it mean "universally". It does not also mean "generally". By the use of the word 'ordinarily' the legislature intended to provide that if an article enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food even by some people usually and not as exception it would be deemed to be 'food'.... The word 'ordinarily' qualifies both "enters into" as also "is used". In Public Prosecutor Vs. V. Nagabhushanam, AIR 1965 AP 118 , a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, referring to the sense in which the word 'ordinarily' has been used in the Act, stated that: On the contrary, there is every indication in the Act that it seeks to protect the public by preventing adulteration of any article or substance which is used as food in any part of the country. It is immaterial whether a given article or substance is not used at all as food in a particular region, or is used only by a section of the people in a given region.... By the use of the word "ordinarily", it seems to us that the legislature intended to lay down that when an article or substance is used as an ingredient in, the preparation of food, even by some inhabitants of this country, usually and not as something exceptional or out of the ordinary, it would come within the definition of "food". This then is the sense in which this word has been used by the Legislature. This then is the sense in which this word has been used by the Legislature. The words "enters into" can only mean to form a constituent part; to become a part or partake; to be an ingredient; or a constituent part, in, to form constituent part or ingredient of. See Corpus Juris Secondum, Vol. 30, page 258. Chambers Dictionary assigns the meaning: "To form a part of to be part of" Webster defines the word 'composition' as "forming a whole or integral by placing together and unifying different things, parts or ingredients." The Shorter Oxford Dictionary, Vol. I, Page 357 gives the following meaning: "The forming (of anything) by combination of parts; a substance formed by combination of various ingredients." The word 'preparation' has also no doubtful meaning. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. II, page 1571 says that 'preparation' means: The action of preparing, or condition of being prepared; making or getting ready; feeding out...the action or special process of putting something into proper condition for use, dressing and serving up (of food). Chambers Dictionary says that it means "the act of preparing; that which is prepared or made ready; to make ready before hand, to make ready for use, to put everything in proper order." 6. That being so an article will be "food" if it ordinarily enters into or is ordinarily used in the composition or preparation of human food. It is immaterial if the composed or prepared matter is taken as food in one part of the country and not in another, or by a section only in a particular part of the country and not by the majority or minority of the community. Even if that composition or preparation is meant for the needs of a few, it will be food provided that composition or preparation is used as human food. What part does Zarda play? Pan is used in all parts of the country. Some persons take it without Zarda, while others use Zarda as an ingredient of the Pan. It is immaterial that they may be in minority or the majority. The Act is for the protection of every citizen of the country and in all its parts. Zarda may not be food in the ordinary sense, as used in the main clause but if it enters Pan, which admittedly is food, Zarda will become food. It is immaterial that they may be in minority or the majority. The Act is for the protection of every citizen of the country and in all its parts. Zarda may not be food in the ordinary sense, as used in the main clause but if it enters Pan, which admittedly is food, Zarda will become food. A legislative body may provide its own definition of food, under a law which it enacts and when it does so that definition must necessarily control regardless of Dictionary definitions, or even though it goes beyond the ordinary meaning of the term. See Suther-lands Statutory Construction, Vol. II, Article 4814, page 358, Third Edition. When a person takes Zarda in his Pan, he certainly drinks the Pan liquid, mixed with Zarda, though the major portion is thrown out. It cannot be denied that part of it goes down the throat into the human system. Whether this liquid is beneficial or injurious to health, has no relevancy, because that person mixes Zarda in Pan, which is food and because Zarda enters into the Pan composed or prepared for him. I am, therefore, of the view that Zarda is "food" within the meaning of Clause (a) of Section 2(v) of the Act. 7. I shall now come to Clause (b). This clause says that food includes any flavoring matter or condiments. In Corpus Juris Secondum, Vol. 36 A, page 752, 'flavour' is defined as meaning that quality of anything which affects the taste. In the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, Vol. I, flavour is the element in the taste of a substance which depends on the co-operation of the sense of smell; a slight peculiarity of taste distinguishing a substance from others; a trace of a particular kind of taste; a savour; an undefinable characteristic in stinctively apprehended. Flavouring is the action of flavour, that is to say, something used to impart flavour. Chambers Dictionary defines it as "that quality of anything which affects the smell or the palate; a smack or relish." Flavouring, according to it, is any substance used to give a flavour. Now what is the purpose of taking Zarda. I think, the object is to give a slight kick to induce exhilaration and may be intoxication. It is certainly also used to give a certain flavour to the palate. Now what is the purpose of taking Zarda. I think, the object is to give a slight kick to induce exhilaration and may be intoxication. It is certainly also used to give a certain flavour to the palate. Tobacco has its own peculiar and characteristic aroma and order which is responsible for relishing Pan by those who use Zarda. A condiment is a pungent and appetizing substance as pepper or mustard; a seasoning or something used to give relish to food and to gratify the taste. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary calls it anything of pronounced flavour used as a relish or to stimulate the appetite. The Chambers Dictionary calls it a seasoning agent employed at table for the purpose of imparting a flavour or seasoning to the ordinary solid or liquid food. Zarda, therefore, is certainly a flavouring matter, if not a condiment. The Act, being a penal statute, I would not hazard the opinion that it is ceased by the expression condiment. 8. It now remains to take notice of two cases of our own High Court which have or alleged to have taken a contrary view. The first is the case of Abdul Karim v. State 1968 AWR 229 . Seth, J. held that tobacco is not food. No authority was cited before him to show that it was food. On the other hand, reliance before him was placed on the Commentary by J.P. Gupta on the Law of Prevention of Adulteration of Food in India, Fourth Edition. J.P. Gupta seems to have derived inspiration from the commentary in Corpus Juris Secondum which has referred to the cases of City of Chicago v. Arbuckle Bros. 176 N.E. 61 and Corum v. R.J. Raynolds Tobacco Co. 171 S.E. 78. No decision can be given on the basis of these two American decisions. Tobacco is used in the United States for smoking or as a snuff and may be for chewing, but not as Zarda in Pan, as in this country. Besides, the American decisions must be based upon the definition of "food" contained in the American Statute. That being so, with all respects, I am unable to take Seth, J.'s decision as laying down the correct law. The next case is M/s. Khedan Lal and Sons v. State of U.P. 1970 AWR 239 . Besides, the American decisions must be based upon the definition of "food" contained in the American Statute. That being so, with all respects, I am unable to take Seth, J.'s decision as laying down the correct law. The next case is M/s. Khedan Lal and Sons v. State of U.P. 1970 AWR 239 . In that case also the tobacco was found to have been coloured with a coaltar dye the use of which was prohibited in colouring food stuffs. Malik, J. held that tobacco was not food within the main interpretation clause. As stated earlier, I am in respectful agreement with that view. Malik, J. was, however, not called upon to decide whether it was food within Clauses (a) and (b). It was conceded before him that chewing tobacco was not flavouring matter or condiment and that it was not an article which ordinarily entered into or was used in the composition or preparation of human food and was also not a drink for human consumption. It was, in these circumstances, that he did not decide this question in the light of these clauses. It cannot, therefore, be said that that decision is an authority for the proposition that it is not included even in Clauses (a) and (b). Altogether, therefore, I am of the view that tobacco is food within the meaning of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 2(v) of the Act. 9. In my opinion, Cr. As. 394, 395 and 750 of 1968 should be allowed. The acquittals of the Respondents in these three appeals should be set aside and the cases remanded to the trial Court with the direction that the trials against them should now proceed. The order of acquittal in Cr. A. 107 of 1969 was passed by the Magistrate on July 24, 1968. Instead of filing the appeal straightaway as in the other three cases, the State took no action. The District Medical Officer of Health filed a revision which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on November 29, 1968. The State filed the appeal against acquittal on March 6, 1969. No ground was mentioned for filing it after the expiry of the period of limitation fixed therefor. No affidavit was also filed to explain the delay. This appeal is, therefore, barred by time. In my view on that account it should be dismissed. 10. The State filed the appeal against acquittal on March 6, 1969. No ground was mentioned for filing it after the expiry of the period of limitation fixed therefor. No affidavit was also filed to explain the delay. This appeal is, therefore, barred by time. In my view on that account it should be dismissed. 10. This opinion may now be laid before the Division Bench. Gursharan Lal, J. 11. These are four criminal appeals which have come before this Bench because of an order of one of us for their being referred to a larger Bench on account of an important question of law being involved relating to the interpretation of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The four appeals have been connected because of a common point of law arising in each of them. 12. The first two and the fourth of the above noted appeals have been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the third one by the Municipal Medical Officer of Health of Faizabad. In the first appeal a Food Inspector of Sultanpur obtained a sample of edible tobacco which contained silver foils as well from Respondent Sri Ram Gupta who was running a tobacco shop. On chemical analysis, the Public Analyst found that the tobacco sample was coloured with a coal tar dye, namely, metallic yellow, the use of which in food stuffs is prohibited. On being prosecuted for punishment u/s 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, a plea was raised on behalf of the accused that Tobacco was not an article of food as had been held by D.D. Seth, J. of this Court in case Abdul Karim v. State (supra). Sri G.K. Tandon, S.D.M. Sadar, Sultanpur before whom the case was pending, felt bound by the said decision and quashed the proceedings and discharged the accused. The State thereupon filed the appeal in this Court. 13. The second appeal also arises from a decision of the same Magistrate quashing the proceedings in discharging accused Ram Sundar Gupta from whom a Food Inspector had purchased a sample of edible tobacco which, on analysis, had been found by the Public Analyst to be coloured with a coaltar dye, namely, metallic yellow, the use of which in food stuffs is prohibited. The State filed the appeal in this Court against that decision. 14. The State filed the appeal in this Court against that decision. 14. The third and the fourth appeals relate to the district of Faizabad. In Cr. A. No. 750 of 1968 the order impugned is that of Sri B.S. Shukla, City Magistrate, Faizabad, in a case which arose upon a complaint u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 filed by the Municipal Medical Officer of Health, Faizabad, against Purshottam Lal Ahuja. A Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of edible tobacco from Ahuja as sample out of tobacco kept in Ahuja's shop of sale to the public. On chemical analysis the Public Analyst found the tobacco to have been covered with the same coal tar dye, namely, metallic yellow which is prohibited for use in food stuffs. A plea was raised from Ahuja that tobacco was not an article of food. Therefore the case was not covered by Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The same decision of Seth, J. was cited before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate accepted the contention on the basis of the said judgment of Seth, J. and also an American case, City of Chicago v. Arbuckle Bros., about which no reference to the report in which the decision has been reported has been made. 15. The last appeal arises from the criminal case arising from a complaint filed by Medical Officer of Health, Faizabad against two persons Vishwanath Prasad and Sant Prasad. A Food Inspector demanded the sale of edible tobacco, coloured with silver foils for sample from the shop of the two accused when they were present at the shop. They refused to sell the tobacco to the Food Inspector and a complaint against them was filed in consequence for their conviction and punishment u/s 16 read with Section 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. A plea was raised on behalf of the accused and they had not committed any offence because the tobacco was not an article of food. They relied upon the decision of D.D. Seth J. aforesaid and their contention was upheld by Sri R.K. Dube, S.D.M. Sadar, Faizabad. A revision was filed before the Sessions Judge by the District Medical Officer of Health and the same was dismissed by Sri A.P. Bhatnagar. Sessions Judge, Faizabad, on the ground that the decision of D.D. Seth, J. aforesaid was binding. A revision was filed before the Sessions Judge by the District Medical Officer of Health and the same was dismissed by Sri A.P. Bhatnagar. Sessions Judge, Faizabad, on the ground that the decision of D.D. Seth, J. aforesaid was binding. The State of Uttar Pradesh on the other hand filed an appeal in this Court against the order of Sri Dube. In this appeal the Respondents have raised the plea that the appeal is time-barred since the order of Sri Dube is dated 24-7-1968 and the appeal was filed on 7-5-1969. 16. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length. Shri K.N. Kapoor, A.G.A., has taken pains to collect relevant data. In all the four appeals the contention on behalf of the Appellants is that edible tobacco is "Food" as defined in Clause (v) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The definition reads: (v) 'Food' means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes- (a) any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of human food, and (b) any flavouring matter or condiments. It will appear that the definition above widens the scope of the term "Food" by including therein all those things which ordinarily enter into, or are used in the composition or preparation of human food and also flavouring matter and condiments. It is therefore not necessary that edible tobacco should be held to be an article used as food for human consumption before it can be regarded as "food" within the meaning of the definition. If it can be held that 'Paan' is an article used as food for human consumption and that edible tobacco ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition and preparation of Paan, then edible tobacco will be regarded as food within the meaning of Section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 17. The judgment of D.D. Seth, J. which is to be found reported in 1968 AWR 229 and which has been the basis of the decisions in the four cases may be discussed first. It consists of a single paragraph of two sentences and is therefore reproduced below: No authority has been shown to me that tobacco is food. 17. The judgment of D.D. Seth, J. which is to be found reported in 1968 AWR 229 and which has been the basis of the decisions in the four cases may be discussed first. It consists of a single paragraph of two sentences and is therefore reproduced below: No authority has been shown to me that tobacco is food. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the Applicant showed to me a commentary by Sri J. P. Gupta, 4th Ed., on law of Prevention of Adulteration of Food in India that tobacco is not an article of food. Under these circumstances, I allow this application and quash the complaint u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act pending in the Court of A.S. D.M., Kerakat, Distt. Jaunpur against the Applicant. Application allowed. It will be seen that the only reasoning advanced by the learned Judge was that no authority had been shown to him that tobacco was food and on the other hand Sri J.P. Gupta had written in his book 'Law of Prevention of Adulteration of Food in India' that tobacco is not an article of food. The decision may of course have been binding on the subordinate courts but so far as we are concerned, it may be stated with all respect that the judgment provides no guidance on the controversial question whether tobacco is "Food" or not within the meaning of Section 2(v) of the aforesaid Act. The authority on which the decision against tobacco being food was given, viz, J.P. Gupta's book 'Law of Prevention of Adulteration of Food in India' is found on perusal to state nothing more than that certain articles, including 'tobacco', have been held not to be articles of 'food' (Page 68) and in the case of tobacco the decision cited is an American case-City of Chicago v. Arbuckle Bros. 176 N.E. 61. It is well known that the use of tobacco leaves in a particular manufactured form as an edible article is peculiar to India and some neighbouring countries and in the American case the use of tobacco only for smoking or as snuff could have been considered for the purposes of holding that it is not an article of food. This wipes out all significance of the decision for the purposes of the cases before us where the question has arisen in relation to edible tobacco preparations. 18. This wipes out all significance of the decision for the purposes of the cases before us where the question has arisen in relation to edible tobacco preparations. 18. We have however also been referred to a more recent decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court on the same point, reported in M/s. Khedan Lal and Sons v. The State of UP 1970 AWR 239 . The case arose upon an application u/s 561-A Code of Criminal Procedure by Khedan Lal and Sons for quashing the criminal proceedings which were pending against them in the Court of a 1st class Magistrate at Kanpur u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The prosecution of Khedan Lal and Sons had taken place because on a sample of tobacco purchased from their shop being sent for chemical analysis the Public Analyst found that tobacco was coloured with a dye prohibited for use in colouring food stuffs. In that case it had however been conceded on behalf of the State that chewing tobacco was not flavouring matter or condiment, nor was it an article ordinarily entering into or used in the composition or preparation of human food and was also not a drink for human consumption. It was therefore considered by S. Malik, J. who decided the case, whether tobacco was food within the ordinary or dictionary meaning of that term. Reliance was placed on the dictionary meanings of the term 'food' as given in tie Shorter Oxford Dictionary, Encyclopaedia Brittanica and Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary and also on the meaning of 'tobacco' as given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Finding that according to the dictionary meaning 'food' is that which is eaten for the sustenance of life or for nourishing the body and promoting its growth while tobacco is a narcotic and sedative substance and observing that tobacco is therefore rather harmful and its excessive use induces a morbid state and can damage the heart, it was held that tobacco could not be food. This decision no doubt proceeds to give a basis for holding that chewing tobacco cannot be regarded as food. This decision no doubt proceeds to give a basis for holding that chewing tobacco cannot be regarded as food. It however loses much its relevancy for the cases under consideration for the reason that it was confined to a consideration of the question as to whether tobacco is food in the ordinary sense of the word and not Under Clause (a) of the definition as an article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of human food. As a matter of fact, besides being used for smoking in different forms and being eaten with Pan after processing in different ways dried tobacco leaves are also chewed after crushing the same with hand in lime paste, the mixture being retained in the mouth and spit out after some time and from the judgment it is not quite certain whether the case dealt with was of tobaoco used in Pan or tobacco used only for chewing and spitting out after some time. The reference in the judgment is to "chewing tobacco". However it may be assumed that it referred to a case of tobacco used with Pan for being eaten and not of tobaoco which is merely chewed and spit out, though it would, in that case, not be clear why it was conceded that tobacco is not an article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food. This concession could be made either if the case was of tobacco used for chewing only or Pan was not regarded as an article of human food. 19. The American Corpus Juris Secondum has been cited before us on behalf of the Respondents in regard to the meaning of 'food'. In Volume 36 1961 ed 771, it has been recorded that 'Food' in general sense of the term is "that which is eaten or drunk for nourishment". The discussion on food also records that in III-City of Chicago v. Arbuckle Bros. 176 NE 61, 344 III. 597 and N.C. Corum v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 171 S.E. 78, 205 N.C. 213 tobacco was not held to be food. The discussion on food also records that in III-City of Chicago v. Arbuckle Bros. 176 NE 61, 344 III. 597 and N.C. Corum v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 171 S.E. 78, 205 N.C. 213 tobacco was not held to be food. The reports of these cases are not available to us but the words within inverted commas in the above quotation from the book are shown to have been taken from Corum's case and it can therefore be inferred that tobacco was not held to be food because food is that which is eaten or drunk for nourishment. But as has been pointed out above these cases must have dealt with the case of tobacco for the purposes of smoking or as snuff and with reference to the definitions in the particular Acts under which the cases would have arisen. In the cases before us the answer to the controversial question is to be determined with reference to the particular use to which the tobacco of which samples were taken for analysis was meant to be used and with reference to the definition in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 reproduced earlier in this judgment. The interpretation of the definition has to be made with reference to the object and purposes of the Act. 20. As the preamble to the Act states, the Act has been enacted to make provision for the prevention of adulteration of food. What is adulteration has been defined in Clause (i) of Section 2 of the Act. An article of food shall be deemed to be 'adulterated' under the said definition in as many as 12 cases. Adulteration, it will appear from the definition, is not confined to mixing with a genuine article of food something which is fake or substandard. Under Sub-clause (e) in the definition, if the article of food had been prepared, packed or kept under unsanitary conditions whereby it has become contaminated or injurious to health, it will be 'adulterated', even though it may be quite genuine or pure otherwise. Under Sub-clause (e) in the definition, if the article of food had been prepared, packed or kept under unsanitary conditions whereby it has become contaminated or injurious to health, it will be 'adulterated', even though it may be quite genuine or pure otherwise. Similarly, Under Sub-clause (h), if the article of food contains any poisonous or other ingredient which renders it injurious to health then too it will be 'adulterated.' Again, if any colouring matter other than that prescribed in respect thereof and in amounts not within the prescribed limits of variability is present in an article of food or if such article contains any prohibited preservatives or permitted preservatives in excess of the prescribed limits, even then it will be deemed to be 'adulterated' article of food. The objection is obvious. It is not only that fake or sub-standard articles of food should not be mixed with articles of food offered for sale but they should have also no such constituents, nor should have been prepared in such conditions, that they become injurious to health. This is apart from the prohibition of manufacture, sale etc. of 'misbranded' articles of food, the word 'misbranded' being defined in Clause (ix) of Section 2. It is precisely to cover all cases of injurious articles of food entering the human body that the definition of food has been widened so as to include any article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food and any flavouring matter or condiments. Thus any flavouring matter or condiments or any article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food should also not be adulterated. For example, if coconut oil which is not food in the ordinary sense of the term but is used in the preparation of human food and is thus Public Prosecutor Vs. V. Nagabhushanam, AIR 1965 AP 118 , suffers from any of the 12 defects mentioned in the definition of 'adulterated' in Clause (i) of Section 2 of the Act, it will be an adulterated article of food. V. Nagabhushanam, AIR 1965 AP 118 , suffers from any of the 12 defects mentioned in the definition of 'adulterated' in Clause (i) of Section 2 of the Act, it will be an adulterated article of food. In case edible tobacco can be held to be an article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food, then it will come within the definition of 'food' and if any colouring matter other than that prescribed in respect thereof is found present in it will be adulterated food, even if edible tobacco may by itself be not regarded as human food within the dictionary meaning of the term. 21. A feature of the definition of food (quoted above) is that it is the use as food or drink for human consumption which makes an article 'food' under the definition and it is not necessarily the nourishing quality or capacity of an article which will determine whether it is food or not. So whatever is actually used as food or drink in the belief that the same provides some nourishment or a help in the maintenance of the body will be food within the definition. It is also well known that every thing which is used for human consumption as food or drink is not necessarily wholly beneficial. For example tea, coffee and liquors are judicially recognized articles of 'food' under the Act and yet it is well known that they have harmful properties as well on the human body. Certain articles may be widely used by reason of their good taste or some exhilaration they may provide, even though they may have harmful effect too on the body. 22. The extensive use of Pan in India from ancient times is well known. The reference by Pan is not to the plain betel leaf but "in the form of packets made with the addition of burnt lime, catechu or gambir and pieces of areca (betel) nut in any state of maturity and tobacco", quoting from page 963 of K.M. Nadkarni's Indian Materia Medica. Quoting from the same book, "Those who can afford, add also cardamoms, nutmegs, cloves, camphor and other aromatics.... The ancient Hindu writers advised betel leaves to be chewed early in the morning after meals and at bed time". Quoting from the same book, "Those who can afford, add also cardamoms, nutmegs, cloves, camphor and other aromatics.... The ancient Hindu writers advised betel leaves to be chewed early in the morning after meals and at bed time". It is however taken at other times as well, more so where edible tobacco is also taken in the Pan. It is included in the offerings to Gods in the performance of religious rites. It is served at social functions and in social visits. In the words of an author of the article "The Chewing Art" appearing in the magazine section of the Pioneer dated October 6, 1968, "chewing betel leaves is an indispensable part of the Indian culture and way of life." The article may usefully be perused by those who feel interested in knowing greater details about the use of Pan in India and other countries and its useful properties for medicinal and other purposes. It will suffice here to mention that Pan is recognised as an article of food. In Chitarmal v. State 1954 AWR 604 Katha was held to be 'food' because it is commonly used in Pan extensively by human beings in this country and Pan was regarded as an article of food, being an article which a human being feeds and which, on being digested nourishes the body and which, according to common opinion, sustains OP promotes growth. In a recent decision the Delhi High Court has also held Katha to be 'food' within the meaning of Section 2(v) of the Act as it is commonly used in the composition of Pan. The case in point is Bishan Dass Mehta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1970 Delhi 267 . Pan being thus held to be article of food in the ordinary sense of the word 'food' it has to be examined if tobacco (in edible form) can be regarded as an article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food, that is to say it is 'food' Under Clause (a) of the definition in Section 2(v) of the Act. It may be repeated that for this purpose it will not matter whether it is a food, according to the dictionary meaning, having nourishing quality or not. It may be repeated that for this purpose it will not matter whether it is a food, according to the dictionary meaning, having nourishing quality or not. A dye, for example, will be food within the meaning of the definition if it is ordinarily used in the preparation of a food article for human consumption though in itself it can never be called a food giving nourishment. It may nevertheless be mentioned that nicotine, responsible for the narcotic properties of tobacco, is not its only constituent. According to Dr. K.M. Nadkarni's Indian Materia Medica, the constituents include nicotimine and nicotelline which are four alkaloids which have been isolated. The other constituents are nicotianin, resins, fats and certain organic acids to which must be added the ash constituents, albumen, gum, extractive matter and ash containing a large amount of salts such as sulphates, nitrates, chlorides, phosphates, malates and citrates of potassium, ammonium, calcium, oxalic acid, etc It is also stated in the same book that nicotine varies in amount in different tobaccos, the finer qualities containing comparatively little and the coarser sorts upto as much as 7%. According to the book, tobacco used in moderation causes in those accustomed to its use, a gentle exhilaration or a state of quietude and repose. Excessive use owing to the presence of nicotine and nicotimine no doubt produces adverse effects. But there are among commonly recognized articles of food also some of which excessive use may be harmful, such as excessive use of even sugar or common salt. In Chandraraj Bhandari's book "Banoushadhi Chandrodaya" of Volume V it has been recorded that according to Ayurved tobacco leaves are antiseptic and have tonic effect besides having some medicinal values. So tobacco is neither wholly harmful, nor always harmful, that is whatever the quantity taken may be. 23. Now it is well known that edible tobacco is also extensively used along with Pan in almost all parts of India. Where it is known that a person eats tobacco, tobacco is put inside the Pan offered to him. Since some people take Pan. without tobacco and others with tobacco, often tobacco is offered separately but alongside Pan. It is invariably eaten with Pan and not by itself. Where it is known that a person eats tobacco, tobacco is put inside the Pan offered to him. Since some people take Pan. without tobacco and others with tobacco, often tobacco is offered separately but alongside Pan. It is invariably eaten with Pan and not by itself. It is thus an article which ordinarily enters into or used in the composition or preparation of one variety of Pan, the other variety being simple Pan, that is to say, Pan without tobacco. The, fact that Pan is often taken without tobacco will be no basis for holding that edible tobacco does not ordinarily enter into or is used in the composition or preparation of Pan. In this connection reference may be invited to certain principles embodied in the majority decision in the Full Bench case, Municipal Board, Kanpur v. Jariki Prasad 1963 AWR 73 . The case dealt with the question whether linseed oil is comprehended by the definition of 'food' given in Section 2(v)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. According to the decision so far as India is concerned, linseed oil as such is not used for food but it cannot be denied that it is used as a cooking medium in several parts of the country and in those parts it can be said to be used in the composition or preparation of human food. Uttar Pradesh is not such a part but because the Act is an All India Act, linseed oil which can be considered to be food in some areas in India would be deemed to be food in Uttar Pradesh also since the same word in a statute cannot have two different and diametrically opposite meaning with two different local areas governed by the same statute. It was also held that word "ordinarily" in Clause (a) of the definition qualifies both "enters into" as also "is used". A similar view was taken in Public Prosecutor Vs. V. Nagabhushanam, AIR 1965 AP 118 in which coconut oil used extensively in Keral as a cooking medium but not so in Andhra Pradesh was held to be food within the definition. It will therefore not matter that tobacco does not invariably enter into or is used in the composition or preparation of Pan but only extensively. It is noteworthy that tobacco is eaten in Pan not in any particular part of India but throughout it. It will therefore not matter that tobacco does not invariably enter into or is used in the composition or preparation of Pan but only extensively. It is noteworthy that tobacco is eaten in Pan not in any particular part of India but throughout it. I am therefore clear of the opinion that edible tobacco is 'ordinarily' enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of Pan, a human food and is 'food' under Clause (a) of the definition of 'food' given in Section 2(v) of the Act. Indeed it would, in my opinion, be unfair to the framers of this Act to hold edible tobacco not to be food and allow prohibited dyes to pass into the human stomach through tobacco when the framers of the Act took all care by giving such wide definitions to "adulterated" and "food" to cover all possible cases of injurious things entering into the human stomach with food. 24. It has been said that cocain is also taken by some persons through the medium of Pan and it has been questioned it therefore cocain be regarded as 'food'. The analogy is wholly inappropriate. The taking of cocain through the medium of Pan by some persons at random will not amount to cocain being an article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food and in no part of the country cocain can be said to be in common use with Pan. It is nowhere offered within or as accompaniment of Pan when Pan is offered to visitors at social functions or ordinarily social visits. So it can by no means be said to be 'ordinarily' used or entering into in the composition or preparation of Pan. 25. I shall, for the above reasons, allow criminal appeals Nos. 394, 395 and 750 of 1968 and set aside the orders, appealed against and direct the concerned Magistrates to decide the cases afresh on the basis that edible tobacco to which the cases relate is 'food' within the meaning of Clause (v) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As to criminal appeal No. 107 of 1969 filed on 1-3-1969, it is clearly time-barred as against the order of discharge dated 24-7-1968, in the absence of an application u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act or showing; otherwise of sufficient cause for delay. As to criminal appeal No. 107 of 1969 filed on 1-3-1969, it is clearly time-barred as against the order of discharge dated 24-7-1968, in the absence of an application u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act or showing; otherwise of sufficient cause for delay. Moreover, it purports to be an appeal against the order of the Sessions Judge passed on 19-11-68 dismissing a revision against the said order of discharge filed by the District Medical Officer of Health, Faizabad. No such appeal is shown to lie. However, the case of a wrong order of discharge having come to this Court's knowledge, this Court can exercise its powers u/s 39 to set aside the order and direct the trial of the accused. I shall therefore set aside the aforesaid order of discharge and direct trial of the accused in the said case too. Jagmohan Lal, J. 26. I had the benefit of reading the judgment prepared by my brother Gur Sharan Lal. I however find it difficult to persuade myself to agree with the view that chewing tobacco is food within the meaning of Section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 which defines 'food' as follows: 'Food' means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes- (a) any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of human food, and (b) any flavouring matter or condiments. This definition, however, does not say what articles are to be considered as articles used as food or drink for human consumption. For that purpose we have to take recourse to the dictionary meaning of the word 'food'. According to the dictionary meaning 'food' is that which is eaten for the sustenance of life or for nourishing the body and promoting its growth. In Volume 36-A (1961 Edition) of the American Corpus Juris Secondum we find at page 771 that 'food' in the general sense of the term has been described as that which is eaten or drunk for nourishment. I agree with brother Gur Sharan Lal that in this general sense chewing tobacco cannot be considered as an article of food. He appears to be further inclined to the view that when tobacco mixed with lime, popularly called as 'Surti' is chewed even then it cannot be considered as an article of food. I agree with brother Gur Sharan Lal that in this general sense chewing tobacco cannot be considered as an article of food. He appears to be further inclined to the view that when tobacco mixed with lime, popularly called as 'Surti' is chewed even then it cannot be considered as an article of food. He is, however, of the opinion that the same tobacco if it is chewed by adding it to a 'Paan', becomes food within the meaning of Section 2(v)(a). The distinction drawn by him in these two forms of consumption of chewing tobacco proceeds on the assumption that when it is chewed as 'surti' the whole of it is spit out and no part of it is allowed to go in the stomach while when it is chewed by adding it to a Paan a major part or at least some part of it is allowed, to go in the stomach. In actual practice this distinction does not appear to hold good. Those who are addicted to chewing tobacco as Surti no doubt spit out major portion of it but still at least some part is allowed to be consumed and to enter the stomach. Again, when Paan to which tobacco has been added is chewed, most of the Paan material including tobacco is spit out and if at all a very minute part of the tobacco is allowed to go inside the stomach. Hence if tobacco is held to be food within the meaning of Section 2(v) it will be food whether it is chewed as 'Surti' or it is chewed by adding it to a Paan. 27. Now, in order to bring tobacco within the definition of 'food' we have to see whether it ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of Paan within the meaning of Section 2(v)(a). It may not be difficult to hold that in our country Paan is considered as an article of food in the sense that its consumption gives nourishment to the body. There are persons who can live without food for the whole day if they regularly get Paan to chew. It may not be difficult to hold that in our country Paan is considered as an article of food in the sense that its consumption gives nourishment to the body. There are persons who can live without food for the whole day if they regularly get Paan to chew. Paan was judicially recognised as an article of food by a learned single Judge of this Court in Chitar Mal v. State 1954 AWR 604 in which it was observed at page 635 of the report: Pan is an article which one feeds on. It is something, which being digested, nourishes the body and at least something which, according to common opinion, sustains or promotes growth. Delhi High Court has also taken similar view in Bishan Dass Mehta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1970 Delhi 267 . In both these decisions it has further been held that catechu (katha) which is an ordinary constituent of a Paan is also 'food' within the meaning of Section 2(v)(a). I am in respectful agreement with these decisions. 28. We have, however, to see whether tobacoo like catechu is also an ordinary constituent of Paan. A simple test to determine whether a substance ordinarily enters into or is ordinarily used in the preparation of a food article is to find out if a seller of that food article can use that substance as an ordinary constituent of that food article without any objection from consumers unless any consumer instructs to the contrary. From that test tobacco, unlike catechu, cannot be called as an ordinary constituent of Paan. Every Paan-seller in preparing a Paan would paste lime and catechu to the betel leaf and put betel nuts on it to complete the preparation of Paan but he would not add tobacoo to it unless he is specifically asked to do so by the customer. If no such instruction is given to him, he will not add tobacco to the Paan but would give it in a separate packet. In all social gatherings and parties where Paans are served, they are served without adding tobacco to them and tobacco is offered separately. If no such instruction is given to him, he will not add tobacco to the Paan but would give it in a separate packet. In all social gatherings and parties where Paans are served, they are served without adding tobacco to them and tobacco is offered separately. This clearly shows that tobacco is not an ordinary constituent of Paan which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of human food (i.e. Paan) but that it is a separate substance which is specially added to the Paan at the desire of the tobaoco-chewers. The number of persons at whose special instructions tobacco is added to Paan is irrelevant. 29. In my opinion, a substance which forms an ordinary constituent of a food article is generally speaking a substance which is not injurious to health even if it does not directly help in the nourishment or growth of the body. Catechu' which is an ordinary constituent of Paan is not in any way injurious to health even though it does not directly help in the nourishment or growth of the body. It is at best of neutral substance without having any injurious effect on health. Whether catechu paste is pasted on betel leaf in small or large quantity it does not have any adverse effect on the health of the betel-chewers. The case of edible oils such as coconut oil, mustard oil and linseed oil, which have also been held to be 'food' within the meaning of Section 2(v) stands even on a better footing. Oils and fats are necessary for the nourishment and growth of the body and as such they may be deemed to be food even in the general sense in which the term 'food' is used. The mere fact that these edible oils are not consumed in raw state but are consumed by using them as cooking medium for preparing other food dishes is not of much consequence. For that matter, even Ghee which is undisputedly an article of food is seldom eaten in raw form and it is mostly eaten by adding it to Dal or using it as a cooking medium for preparing other food dishes. 30. The same thing cannot however be said about tobacoo which is a narcotic and contains nicotine in substantial quantity. For that matter, even Ghee which is undisputedly an article of food is seldom eaten in raw form and it is mostly eaten by adding it to Dal or using it as a cooking medium for preparing other food dishes. 30. The same thing cannot however be said about tobacoo which is a narcotic and contains nicotine in substantial quantity. According to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence tobacco is harmful being a narcotic and it contains nicotine which is harmful and excessive misuse of tobacco induces a morbid state and can damage heart. It may be contended that for that matter even liquor is harmful to health particularly when it is taken in excess and inspite of that liquor is now included in the definition of 'food' under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act though formerly it was specifically excluded from the definition of 'food' under the U.P. Pure Food Act which was repealed by this Central Act. If the Legislature in its wisdom thought fit to include liquor also in the definition of 'food', inspite of its excessive use having a harmful effect on health, there can be no occasion to say that it should not be taken as food for the purposes of that Act. If tobacco had also been specifically included in the definition of food by legislative fiction even though it was not in reality an article of food, the Courts could not question it and say that it is not 'food'. But when tobacoo is sought to be included in the definition of 'food' by an interpretation of the provision contained in Section 2(v), the effect which tobacco has on general health of human beings has also to be taken into consideration. 31. It was also contended that permissible colours ordinarily used in preparation of certain sweets and other food articles, flavouring material and preservatives added to food, are themselves considered as food within the meaning of Section 2(v) though excessive use of these things may also be harmful. I am not in a position to say whether excessive use of these things is actually harmful to health or not. I am not in a position to say whether excessive use of these things is actually harmful to health or not. Assuming that it is so, we find that the Legislature through the rules framed Under Clauses (i) and (j) of Section 23 has not only laid down the composition and standard of purity of these articles but also prescribed the maximum quantity that is permissible to be added to an article of food, perhaps, having regard to their baneful effect on health. With regard to catechu also specific standards of purity and composition have been prescribed at Serial No. A. 21 of Appendix B to Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 32. So far as tobaoco is concerned, neither any standard of purity or corn-position of the substance has been prescribed nor the maximum quantity that may be safely added to Paan has been laid down. If tobacco is held to be food as an ordinary constituent of Paan, a betel-seller may add any quantity of tobacco to the Paan prepared by him without any instruction from the customer. Such a Paan containing excessive quantity of tobacco if chewed by a tobacco-chewer, assuming that a substantial pare of the tobacco is allowed to go inside, would definitely be injurious to his health. In the case of a person who is not habituated to chewing tobacco it would create havoc. He would immediately start having a reeling sensation in his head and get snuffing and coughing with its deleterious effect on his health. The Paan seller would not, however, commit any offence because in preparing a Paan of this nature he has only added one type of food, that is, tobacco, to another type of food, that is, Paan. If, however, tobacco is not held to be an ordinary constituent of Paan and as such food within the meaning of Section 2(v)(a), a betel-seller who adds tobacco in excessive quantity to a Paan without the instruction of the customer would be adulterating the Paan itself u/s 2(i)(h) which provides that if an article contains any poisonous or other ingredient which renders it injurious to health, it will be deemed as an adulterated article. For that he can be brought to book. The purpose of the Act is to prevent adulteration of food in the interest of health of the people. For that he can be brought to book. The purpose of the Act is to prevent adulteration of food in the interest of health of the people. Hence an interpretation on the provisions of the Act which may defeat the very purpose should be avoided. 33. On behalf of the Appellant a reference was made to the medicinal value of tobacco and it was contended that besides nicotine which is harmful to health it contains other things also, such as nicotianin, resins, fats and certain organic acids to which must be added the ash constituents, albumen, gum, extractive matter and ash containing a large amount of salts such as sulphates, nitrates, chlorides, ohosphates, malates and citrates of potassium, ammonium, calcium, oxalic acid, etc. In support of it Dr. K.M. Nadkarni's Indian Materia Medica which deals with Ayurvedic Medicines was also referred to. In determining whether a substance is food or not its medicinal value has hardly any relevancy. Sometimes, even poisonous substances have some medicinal value but they do not for that reason become food. Section 2 (v) specifically excludes medicine from the definition of food. 34. Lastly it was contended that if chewing tobacco is not held to be food, the sellers of this article would be at liberty to adulterate it with, anything they like and pass on the same to the purchaser as genuine chewing tobacco. If the Legislature intends to protect the consumers of chewing tobacco from such mal practices of the sellers, there is no bar to it by specifically adding tobacco in the definition of food. In that case, the Legislature can also frame necessary rules not only specifying the standard of purity and composition of this substance but also laying down restrictions regarding the quantity which a Paan-seller can add to a Paan so as not to be injurious to health of the chewer of the Paan and that too only under the instruction of the customer. In the present case, the showing tobacco is said to have been coloured by a coaltar dye which is a non-permissible colour for use in food articles. I wonder if a minute quantity of a non-permissible dye used in colouring the chewing tobacco is really more harmful than the tobacco itself if it is added in large quantity to a Paan on the assumption that it is food within the meaning of Section 2(v)(a). 35. I wonder if a minute quantity of a non-permissible dye used in colouring the chewing tobacco is really more harmful than the tobacco itself if it is added in large quantity to a Paan on the assumption that it is food within the meaning of Section 2(v)(a). 35. In two cases it was held by two learned Judges of this Court that tobacco is not food. In Abdul Karim v. State 1968 AWR 229 D.D. Seth, J. held that tobacco is not food. In Khedan Lal and Sons v. State of U.P. 1970 AWR 239 S. Malik, J. also held that tobacco does not come within the definition of food as laid down in Section 2(v). For reasons stated above I am also of the same view. 36. I will therefore dismiss all the four appeals. By The Court. 37. In accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of Ch. VIII of the Rules of Court and the opinion of the third Judge, K.B. Srivastava, J., Cr. As. Nos. 394, 395 and 750 of 1968 are allowed. The acquittals of the Respondents in these appeals are set aside and the cases remanded to the respective trial Courts with the direction that the trials against them should proceed on the merits. 38. Cr. A. No. 107 of 1969 is dismissed as time-barred.