JUDGMENT - N.B. NAIK, J.:---By this revision application the petitioners challenge the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Bombay dated 24th February, 1976 convicting them for an offence under section 394(1)(e) read with section 471 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision application are not in dispute. The accused are partners of a firm doing business at Shop No. 1, 2nd Koliwada, Nawab Tank Road, Mazgaon, Bombay. On 4th October, 1973 at about 10 a.m. Mr. Kolambkar, Beat Inspector, Licence Department Bombay Municipal Corporation, visited the shop of the accused known as Emson Colour Industries. Accused No. 2 was present. The Beat Inspector noticed that 3 workers were busy working. One worker was found mixing water with colour dyes and stirring with a rod. The second worker was found spreading the said mixture for drying purpose and the third worker was found packing the dried mixture in the containers. There were, it is alleged, 17 tins of 50 Kgs. of colour dyes with different colour. The Inspector prepared the inspection report and gave the original to accused No. 2 and obtained his signature for the same. As the accused had no licence for carrying on trade, they were prosecuted. 3. The defence of the accused was that they were carrying on the work of mixing the colours with water and thereafter drying them and packing them in the containers and as the dyes are not chemicals no licence is required under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. 4. At the trial the prosecution examined Mr. Kolambkar, Beat Inspector, Licence Department. The prosecution also examined Mr. Joshi, Assistant Municipal Analyst. It appears from the evidence of Mr. Joshi and also of Mr. Kolambkar that as the accused had maintained that dyes are not chemicals, Mr. Kolambkar tried to obtain the opinion of Mr. Joshi. Mr. Joshi as appears from his opinion Ex. 1 dated 14th November, 1973 observed as under: "Red and violet powder are dyes. Red powder is not combustible. When dissolved in NaOH and hot rappted by acid again. Violet powder is emb. Net dissolved in NaOH and hot reppt in Acid. Adding water and drying is not a process. By processing chemical change occurs then it is licensable. 1 dated 14th November, 1973 observed as under: "Red and violet powder are dyes. Red powder is not combustible. When dissolved in NaOH and hot rappted by acid again. Violet powder is emb. Net dissolved in NaOH and hot reppt in Acid. Adding water and drying is not a process. By processing chemical change occurs then it is licensable. In view of the above detail process may be sent along with its chemical nominclature." 5. Thereafter also it appears, Mr. Joshis opinion was called for and as appears from Ex. B he gave a cryptic opinion as under: "Dyes are chemicals and hence packing of dyes from bulk to small packing is licensable under part IV of Schedule M, "packing of chemicals". Mr. Joshi in his evidence stated that he carried out the test. It was a direct dye and that direct dye means the dye which import colour to cotton directly. He also stated that it is not possible to find out the correct name of dye and added that it could be aniline dye. He also stated that he tried to find out whether it was rapid fast dye, sulphur black diason fast salt and that his finding was negative. He admitted that he did not try to find out the exact constituents of the dye samples. He also admitted that he is not in a position to give the composition of the dye. He conceded that if water is added to aniline dye no process is involved as there is no chemical change. 6. The accused in their defence as I have stated having pleaded not guilty to the charge maintained that as the dye which they are mixing and packing is not a chemical no licence is required. In support of their contention they produced a letter of the Director of Italab Private Ltd. dated 5th November, 1974. The said Director was not examined by them. 7. The learned Magistrate inspite of the infirmity in the evidence of Joshi and inspite of there being no positive evidence to the effect that the dye which was analysed was a chemical came to the conclusion that it is a chemical and for that purpose he relied solely on certain books which were produced by the prosecution. The prosecution for instance relied upon Condensed Chemical Dictionary Page 428. The prosecution for instance relied upon Condensed Chemical Dictionary Page 428. The prosecution also relied upon a book called Dues and their Intermediates and the text book of Organic Chemistry where dye is defined. The prosecution also relied upon the particulars of Biological Mycrotechnic at page 156. Reliance was also placed on the Encyclopadia where dyes have been defined. Relying on this material the learned Magistrate held that the dyes in question were material chemicals and since packing of chemicals requires a licence under Part IV of Schedule M, and since admittedly the accused do not hold a licence for the same they were committed the offence complained of. Consistently with that view he has convicted the accused. 8. It is the correctness of this conviction which is challenged by the accused by filing this revision application. 9. It was argued by Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the accused that inspite of there being no specific evidence before the Court that the dyes are chemicals the Court has proceeded to convict the accused by relying on the dictionary meaning and the technical books on the subject. He also submitted that because it was felt by the learned Counsel for the accused that the prosecution has not led evidence to prove that the dye in question was a chemical, the defence did not choose a examine its expert to prove its contention that the dye in question was not a chemical. In any event he submitted that since the question involved is one of general importance the matter may be sent back to give an opportunity to prove that the dye in question is not a chemical. 10. Mr. Kotwal, learned Public Prosecutor had to concede as he must, that so far as the record of the case goes, the case rests solely on the dictionary meaning and the text books. He also could not dispute the fact that the evidence of Mr. Joshi which was sought to be led as the evidence of an analyst does not prove that the dye in question is a chemical. He also could not dispute the fact that the evidence of Mr. Joshi which was sought to be led as the evidence of an analyst does not prove that the dye in question is a chemical. But he submits that having regard to the fact that the question involved is of public importance, the prosecution also may be given an opportunity to prove that the dye in question is a chemical by leading the expert evidence of the Department of Chemical Technology or such other expert as the prosecution may choose. Both the Advocates agreed that the samples for the same shall be supplied by the accused-revision petitioner and it is open to both the parties to lead expert evidence about their rival contentions as to whether the dyes in which the accused are dealing is a chemical or not. In view of that understanding it is not necessary for me to deal with the case at length. 11. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The matter is sent back to the lower Court for disposal according to law after giving both parties an opportunity of leading evidence to prove their rival contentions. Fine, if paid, may be refunded to the accused. Rule absolute. -----