JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal by the State against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sindkheda, acquitting the respondent on charges under Sec. 7 read with S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and with Cl. 15(2) of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1970. It is not necessary to go into all the details of the prosecution case, because the order of acquittal will have to be upheld on the short ground that the commodity in question is not a 'drug' within the meaning of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and therefore does not come within the mischief of Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2. For sake of brevity, I shall refer to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1970 as the 1955 Act', 1940 Act' and 1970 Order' respectively. 3. The respondent runs a shop under the name and style of M/s. Ganesh Medical Stores at Sindkheda. One Shri Bhartiya who was posted as Civil Judge at Sindkheda purchased 300 grammes of 'Syu Protein Grannules' on 23rd Mar., 1976 from the respondent for a price of Rs. 16.75ps. Under Sec. 3 of the 1955 Act, the Central Government has made the 1970 Order inter alia for regulating the prices of certain drugs. The definition of the term 'essential commodity' as given in the 1955 Act expressly includes 'drug' and the term 'drug' has been assigned the same meaning as in Sec. 3(b) of the 1940 Act. Please see Sec. 2(a) (iva) of the 1955 Act along with the Explanation appended thereto. The prosecution case was that the article purchased by Shri Bhartiya (hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed commodity') attracts the provisions of the 1970 Order and that the respondent was not entitled to recover anything in excess of Rs. 15.90 inclusive of local taxes. Accordingly the respondent was prosecuted for breach of Cl. 15(2) of the 1970 Order read with Ss. 3 and 7 of the 1955 Act. 4. It is an admitted position that the disputed Commodity is not mentioned by name in the 1970 Order as one of the articles to which the order applies. 15.90 inclusive of local taxes. Accordingly the respondent was prosecuted for breach of Cl. 15(2) of the 1970 Order read with Ss. 3 and 7 of the 1955 Act. 4. It is an admitted position that the disputed Commodity is not mentioned by name in the 1970 Order as one of the articles to which the order applies. The most crucial question in the case therefore would be whether the disputed article is not a drug within the meaning of Sec. 3(b) of the 1940 Act, and if 'yes' whether the 1970 Order is applicable to it. Section 3(b) defines the term 'drug' as follows : (b) "drug" includes- (i) all medicines for internal or external use of human beings or animals and all substances intended to be used for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease in human beings or animals and (ii) such substances other than food intended to affect the structure or any function of the human body or intended to be used for the destruction of vermin or insects which cause disease in human beings or animals, as may be specified from time to time by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette." It is an admitted position before me as was before the learned Magistrate, that sub-cl. (ii) will not apply to the disputed commodity, inasmuch as there is no notification by the Central Government as contemplated by the said sub-clause. Thus, we are left with sub-cl. (i) only. In order to prove that the disputed commodity is a drug, the prosecution relies on a bald assertion of Food Inspector Bhavsar to the effect that it is a drug. Apart from this opinion of Bhavsar which is not based on any tangible data, there is absolutely no evidence whatever to hold that the disputed commodity is a drug. It has come in the cross-examination of Bhavsar that the disputed commodity substantially consists of proteins. It is common knowledge that proteins are a body building substance – a nutrition, while a medicine is a therapeutic substance - essentially connected with healing. In absence of evidence on all aspects it will be difficult to term proteins as a 'medicine'. It has come in the cross-examination of Bhavsar that the disputed commodity substantially consists of proteins. It is common knowledge that proteins are a body building substance – a nutrition, while a medicine is a therapeutic substance - essentially connected with healing. In absence of evidence on all aspects it will be difficult to term proteins as a 'medicine'. The learned Magistrate was absolutely right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the disputed commodity is a drug as defined in Sec. 3(b) of the 1940 Act. 5. In view of the finding above, it is clear that the 1970 Order does not apply to the disputed commodity. The respondent was rightly acquitted by the learned Magistrate. It is not necessary for me now to go into other aspects of this case. This appeal stands dismissed as being without any substance. The respondent's bail bond stands cancelled. Appeal dismissed.