JUDGMENT 1. This is an application-in-revision filed by Ladhu Ram against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, by which his appeal was dismissed and his conviction and sentence were maintained, 2. The petitioner was tried by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sri Gangangar, for an offence punishable under Section 7 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and was found guilty there of. The Judicial Magistrate after convicting the petitioner for the aforesaid offence sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for four months. 3. The prosecution case against the petitioner was that on 4-8-1970, at about 11 a.m. the Food Inspector, Ganganagar, went to the shop of the petitioner known as `Firm Chiman Lal Kashmiri La)' and after disclosing his identity to the petitioner demanded from him 450 grams of turmeric powder on payment of price there of. There upon Ladhu Ram petitioner sold the required quantity of turmeric powder to the Food Inspector for Rs. 2.25. P. The quantity purchased was divided into three equal parts and each part was filled in. a. dry clean bottle by the Food Inspector. The bottles were then separately labelled and sealed in the presence of the Motbirs. One bottle containing sample of turmeric powder was sent to the Public Analyst, who, upon analysis, found that it was adulterated and did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. The result of his analysis was as under ; - Moisture 10.6% Total ash 9.5% Ash insoluble in dil HCI 1.7% Test for Pb chromatic Negative Total Starch 40.6% Artificial colour insects Nil 4. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector obtained requisite sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under S. 7/16 of the Act from the competent authority and thereafter made a complaint against the petitioner to the court of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sri Ganganagar. The Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner stated`above. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the court of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, but the appeal was dismissed and his conviction and sentences were maintained. The petitioner has, therefore, come-up to this Court in revision. 5. The Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner stated`above. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the court of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, but the appeal was dismissed and his conviction and sentences were maintained. The petitioner has, therefore, come-up to this Court in revision. 5. I have carefully gone through the record and heard Mr. S. R. Bajwa for the petitioner and Dr. S. S. Bhandawat for the State. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the quantity of turmeric powder supplied in this case to the Public Analyst for analysis was 150 grams only while the quantity required to be sent to the Public Analyst should have been not less than 200 grams as per rule 22 item No. 2.3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, hereinafter referred-to as the Rules,, it was further urged by Mr. Bajwa learned counsel for the petitioner that the turmeric powder does not fall under the head `Spices' mentioned in item No. 17 of Rule 22 of the Rules as. turmeric is a condiment covered by the general item No. 23 of the said Rules which prescribes quantity of sample of all such foods for being-sent to the Public Analyst as have not been specified in other items under rule 22. In support of his above contention, Mr. S. R. Bajwa referred to Handbook of Agriculture issued by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi (Third Edition August 1967 reprinted with Addenda October, 1969) wherein at page 282 turmeric (Curcuma Longa L) was described as an important condiment, Mr. S. R. Bajwa further relied upon a recent authority of the Bombay High Court Vithal Kallappa Shetty v. The State of Maharashtra, 1976 FAJ 335 to show that spices and condiments are different products and do not fall within the purview of one category. 6. Dr S. S. Bhandawat appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, contended that the turmeric powder is a flavouring matter, which is ordinarily used in the composition or preparation of human food and that it cannot be distinguished easily with spices which also are used in cookery to season and flavour food. Dr. S. S. Bhandawat further argued that the approximate quantity to be sent to the Public Analyst in this case was 150 gramms only. Dr. S. S. Bhandawat further argued that the approximate quantity to be sent to the Public Analyst in this case was 150 gramms only. As the the turmeric powder can very well fall under head `Spices' mentioned in item No. 17 of Rule 22, no mandatory provision of the Rules has, therefore, been contravened so as to cause injustice to the petitioner. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. I may observe at the outset that the quantity of sample of food to be supplied to the Public Analyst for analysis is specified in rule 22 of the Rules. From a bare reading of Rule 22 it appears that quantities of samples of as many as 22 kinds of foods, which are required to be sent to the Public Analyst, are specified therein. Then follows item No. 23, i. e. `foods not specified'. This is a general item for such kinds of foods which have not been specified earlier in rule 22. Spices are mentioned in item No. 17 of Rule 22. It is not; worthy that `condiments' are not mentioned in item No. 17 along with`spices'. Hence, it cannot be safely held that the quantity of sample of any condiment which is required to be supplied to the Public Analyst will be the same as prescribed under head `spices given in item No. 17'. If the intention of the rule making authority had been to club spices and condiments together in one item No. 17, it would have mentioned condiments along with spices in one item, i.e. No. 17. If condiments do not fall within the category of spices mentioned in item No. 17 of rule 22, the only item which can cover them is item No. 23, i. e. foods not specified and the quantity of the sample which is required to be supplied to the Public Analyst must be 200 grams. 8. The important question, therefore, that arises for determination in this case is whether turmeric powder is a product which is different from spices and which cannot fall under head spices given in item No. 17 of rule 22. Turmeric (curcuma Longa L) is described m the Hand Book of Agriculture issued by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi as one of the important condiments in the following words at page 282-283 "Turmeric (Curcuma Longa L). Turmeric (curcuma Longa L) is described m the Hand Book of Agriculture issued by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi as one of the important condiments in the following words at page 282-283 "Turmeric (Curcuma Longa L). Turmeric is an important condiment and a useful dye which is not fast. It is also used medicinally for external application in pains and internal administration as a stimulant. Generally it is used as a cosmetic by ladies. Hindus also use it as an offering on religious and ceremonial occasions. It is cultivated in almost all the States, particularly Madras, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal and Orissa. It also grows wild in the shady valleys and forest slopes of the Westren and Eastern Ghats." 9. Turmeric has been defined also in the Oxford English Dictionary Vol. XI at page 483 as follows:- `The aromatic and pungent root-stock of an East Indian plant, or the powder made of this, the chief ingredient in curry powder, used also in dyeing yellow and as a chemical test, and in the East as a condiment and medicinally also called curcuma (CURCUMA b). 10. From these definitions, it is clear that turmeric or turmeric powder is a condiment which is different from Spice. A similar view was taken by Padhye J. of the Bombay High Court in Vithal Kallappa Shetty v. The State of Maharasthtra (Supra). The Hon'ble Judge observed as follows in para 18:- "The question, therefore, is whether turmeric powder or chilly.powder can be said to fall withing the term "spices." "Spices" has not been defined either in the Act or in the Rules. "Food" has been defined in section 2(V) of the Act which 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. The turmeric powder and chilly powder can very well fall under clause (a) of section 2 (v) as these substances ordinarily enter into, or are used in the constitution or preparation of human food. The two commodities, therefore, would fall under the definition of "Food". However, it will be found that the flavouring matter condiments are put in different category even though they are used in the preparation of human food. The two commodities, therefore, would fall under the definition of "Food". However, it will be found that the flavouring matter condiments are put in different category even though they are used in the preparation of human food. They are treated differently than other articles which enter into the human food. The substances mentioned in Clause (b) need not ordinarily enter into or used in the composition or preparation of human food. They are not essential but they are used only for giving additional flavour to the food and that is why they are dealt with separately. "Spices" have been defined in the Webster's Third New International Dictionary as meaning any of various aromatic vegetable products (us pepper, cinnamon, nutmeg, mace all spice, ginger, cloves) used in crockery to season food and to flavour foods. The Concise Oxford Dictionary also gives the meaning as aromatic or pungent vegetable substance used to flavour food, e. g. cloves, pepper, mace. It would, thus, appear that turmeric and chilly powders are substances which are different than spices. Spice is not a substitute for turmeric or chilly powder, but is an additional substance which has to be added to food in its preparation for giving it a special flavour or taste. In this sense, turmeric or chilly powders would not be covered in the term "spices." 11. Hence, turmeric being a condiment does not fall under head `spices' given in item No. 17 of Rule 22. The only item which is applicable to turmeric powder is item No. 23, i.e. `Foods not specified' and the quantity, therefore, that is to be sent to the Public Analyst must be 200 grams. In the instant case, the Food Inspector purchased sample of 450 grams of turmeric powder only from the shop of the petitioner and after dividing it into three equal parts filled each part in a separate dry clean bottle which was properly labelled and sealed. In this manner, the sample sent to the Public Analyst contained 150 grams of turmeric powder only while it must have contained at least 200 grams as prescribed under item No. 28 of Ride 22 of the Rules. In this manner, the sample sent to the Public Analyst contained 150 grams of turmeric powder only while it must have contained at least 200 grams as prescribed under item No. 28 of Ride 22 of the Rules. It would thus appear that there was contravention of the mandatory provisions of Rule 22 on the part of the Food Inspector in sending lesser quantity of sample of turmeric powder to the Public Analyst than the one prescribed under Rule 23, item No. 23., It has been held by the Supreme Court in R. G. Pamanani v. State of Maharashtra that deficient supply of sample to the Public Analyst for analysis in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Rule 22 would cause- injustice, because the quantities required to be sent to the Public Analyst under Rule 22 are prescribed to enable the Public Analyst to have correct analysis of the sample sent to him. The following observations made in the referred to above case by Hon'ble Ray C. J. are quoted below in extenso to show that there is no compliance of the mandatory provisions of the statute if lesser quantity of sample of food than the on.- prescribed under rule 22 is sent to the Public Analyst for analysis "The appellant also contended that samples were not taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules there under. Rule 22 states that in the case of asafoetida the approximate quantity to be supplied for analysis is 100 grams and in the case of compounded asfoetida 200 grams. The Public Analyst did not have the quantities mentioned in the Rules for analysis. The appellant rightly contends that non-compliance with the quantity to be supplied caused not only infraction of the provisions but also injustice. The quantities mentioned are required for correct analysis. Shortage in quantity for analysis is not permitted by the statute." 12. In this view of the matter, it may be safety held that the conviction and the sentence of the petitioner are liable to be set aside. Accordingly 1 accept this revision petition, set aside the conviction and the sentence of the petitioner under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and acquit him of the aforesaid offence. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds which are here by cancelled. *******