JUDGMENT 1. 1. These two petitions Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code involve certain common question of law on identical facts. These were, therefore, heard to-gether and are being decided by this common order. The main order shall be placed on the case- file of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 366 of 1995, Ramakant & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and a copy thereof on the record of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 579/95, M/s. American Remedies (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan . 2. The relevant facts in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 366 of 1995, Ramakant and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan are that M/s. Khandelwala Medical Stores, Sikar (Petitioner No. 2) and M/s. Bansal Medical Agencies, Sikar (Petitioner No. 4) are the proprietorship concerns of Ramakant (Petitioner No. 1) and Anil Kumar (Petitioner No. 3) respectively. On August, 10, 1989 Sri Sita Ram Sharma, Food Inspector, Sikar Purchased three tins of `Provitex' powder for Rs. 96/- from Ramakant (Petitioner No. 1). Ramakant Petitioner had purchased the said powder from petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 and had sold the same to Food Inspector in the same condition in which they were purchased by them. The Food Inspector got the samples of `Provitex' Chemically examined and those were found adulterated because of presence of `Sacharin'. The said `powder' is stated to have been manufactured by Rallis Indian Limited Pharmaceuticals and Chemical Division, Andhery, Bombay under license issued by the Food and Drugs Authorities, Madras. After obtaining sanction the Food Inspector filed a complaint against the petitioners and the learned Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the offence Under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act of 1954) recorded pre-charge evidence and framed charges against the four petitioners accordingly vide its order dated 1.12.1994. It is that order of the learned Magistrate which is under challenge in this petition. 3. In S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 579 of 1995 M/s. American Remedies (Pvt.) Limited Shri Sita Ram Sharma, Food Inspector, Sikar had similarly purchased three packets of "HI-PRO' protein supplement. On 15.9.89 from M/s. Bansal Medical Agencies, Sikar. The said protein supplement had been purchased by the said concern from M/s. American Remedies (Pvt.) Ltd. Depot No. 2, Bhopal (M.P) vide Bill No. 938 dated 24.6.89 and allegedly sold to the Food Inspector in the same condition in which the same was purchased by them. On 15.9.89 from M/s. Bansal Medical Agencies, Sikar. The said protein supplement had been purchased by the said concern from M/s. American Remedies (Pvt.) Ltd. Depot No. 2, Bhopal (M.P) vide Bill No. 938 dated 24.6.89 and allegedly sold to the Food Inspector in the same condition in which the same was purchased by them. The said supplement was, undisputedly, manufactured by the Foods and Drugs Authorities, Madras under a licence issued under the Drugs Rules 1945. On Chemical analysis the said protein supplement was found adulterated for presence of "Saccharine" therein. The Food Inspector thereupon filed a complaint against the petitioners in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar who by his impugned order dated 1.12.94, framed charges Under sections 7/16 of Act of 1954 against the petitioners. Hence this petitioner Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 4. At the very outset it may be stated that the learned Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the two impugned orders were revisable Under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code and therefore, extra-ordinary jurisdiction Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code of this Court is not required to be invoked in these cases. The objection raised is correct. I would have consequently dismissed these petitions but I found force in Mr. Rathore's contention that these petitions may be converted into revision petition Under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code It is true that this Court has revisionary jurisdiction Under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code in such matters and since power is concurrent with those of the Sessions Judge and as a rule of procedure & practice the petitions Under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code should have been filed in the Court of Sessions Judge, concerned in order to maintain the principle of hierarchy of Courts, but looking to the facts that the decision of these petitions turns solely on the jurisdictional aspect of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence under the provisions of Act of 1954 and that directing the petitioners to approach the learned Sessions Judge, concerned would involve avoidable multiplicity of proceedings I deemed it proper to dispose off these petitions here and now therefore, these petitions are registered as ones Under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code But this shall not be read as a precedent in such matters. 5. The contention of Mr. Rathore is that `Provitex' (in S.B. Cr. 5. The contention of Mr. Rathore is that `Provitex' (in S.B. Cr. Misc Petition No. 366 of 1995) and `HI-PRO' Protein Supplement (in S.B. Cri. Misc. Petition No. 579 of 1995) do not fall within the purview of the terms `food' and `adulterated' as defined in S. 2(v) and 2(i) of Act of 1954 respectively, and, therefore, the offence contemplated Under section 7 read with section 16 of the said Act cannot be said to have been prima facie committed in the present cases. The learned Public Prosecutor no doubt opposed this contention of Mr. Rathore but I find considerable force in it. Section 2(v) of Act of 1954 defines `Food' in the following words:- 2(v) `Food' means any articles 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. (b) any flavouring matter or condiments, and (c) any other article which the Central Government may, having regard to its use, nature, substance or quality, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, as food for the purpose of this Act." 6. It may be noted that the above definition of the term `Food' embraces within its fold any article used as food or drink for human consumption. The use of the expression "for human consumption" occurring in the language of the definition of `food' makes the definition quite exhaustive and wide enough to include all articles of food and/or drink meant for human consumption. But the wide scope of this definition stands controlled by the use of the expression "Other than drugs and water". That means that such articles as fall within the purview of "Food" and may be meant for human consumption but are of the nature of `drugs' and `water' would not fall within the definition of `Food' given in Section 2(v) of Act of 1954. It necessarily takes us to examine the definition of the term `drug' with which we are concerned in these petitions. However, before we do that it may be observed that if the articles in these petitions do not fall within the purview of the definition of the term `drug' than those may be treated adulterated as per definition of the term in Sec." (i) read with Rule 47 of the Rules framed under the Act of 1954. However, before we do that it may be observed that if the articles in these petitions do not fall within the purview of the definition of the term `drug' than those may be treated adulterated as per definition of the term in Sec." (i) read with Rule 47 of the Rules framed under the Act of 1954. Rule 47 of such Rules read as under 47. "Restriction on use and sale of artificial Sweeteners; (1) No artificial sweetener shall be added to any article of food; Provided that artificial sweetners may be used in following food article in quantities not exceeding the limits shown against them and shall hear the liable declaration as provided in (1) of sub-rule (ZZZ) of Rule 42. SI. No. Name of Sweetener artificial Article of food Maximum limit 1. Saccharine sodium Carbonated water 100 PPM, as Scharine Provided that saccharine sodium or aspertame (methyl ester) may be sold as table top sweetners and may contain/or filler articles. Provided further that seccharine sodium and a spertame (methyl ester) should conform to the standards laid-down under items A. 07.10 and A. 07.12 of Appendix of these rules, respectively; (2) No mixture of artificial sweetners shall be added to any article of food or in the manufacture of able top sweetners. (3) No person shall sell a spertame as table top sweetners, except for diabetic use and only under medical advice under liable declaration as provided in (2) of sub- rule (ZZZ) of Rule 42." Item No. 07-10 referred to in the above Rule, Provides that: "A. 07-10 - Saccharin Sodium commonly known as soluble Saccharin having an impirical formula as C2H4NNao3S. 2H2O and molecular weight as 241.2'shall be the material which is soluble at 200C in 1.5 parts of water and 50 parts of alcohol (95 per cent); and shall contain no less than 98.0 per cent and not more than the equivalent of 100.5 per cent of C H O NSNa calculated with reference to the substance dried to constant weight at 1050C, assay being carried out as presented in Indian Pharmacopoeia. It shall not contain more than 2 p.p.m. of arsenic and 10 p.p.m. of lead. The melting point of Saccharin isolated from (fie material as per Indian Pharmacopoeia method shall be between 2260C and 2300C. It shall not contain more than 2 p.p.m. of arsenic and 10 p.p.m. of lead. The melting point of Saccharin isolated from (fie material as per Indian Pharmacopoeia method shall be between 2260C and 2300C. The loss on drying of the material at 1050C shall not be less than 12.0 per cent and not more than 16.0 per cent of weight. The material shall satisfy the tests of identification and shall conform to the limit tests for free acid or alkali, ammonium compounds and parasulpha moylbenzoate as mentioned in the Indian Pharmacopoeia." 7. A bare reading of the above provisions establishes that sub rules (1) and (2) of Rules 47 clearly prohibit the use of any artificial sweetener in any article of food. Saccharine is an artificial sweetener and therefore, its use in `PROVITEX' and `HI-PRO', if those articles are not found to be drugs, would make there adulterated for the purposes of offence Under section 7 punishable Under section 16 of the Act of 1954. 8. Now reverting to the subject on hand we find that the term drug has been defined in Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 (The Drugs Act) term `drug' has as under:- 1940 (The Drugs Act) as under:- "3(b) `drug' includes - 2(1) all medicines for internal or external use of human beings or animals and all substances intended to be used for in tb1 beings or animals diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of any disease or disorder in human beings or animals, including preparations applied on human body for the purpose of repelling insects like mosquitoes; (ii) such substances (other than food) intended to affect the structure of 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; (iii) all substances intended for use as components of a drug including empty gelatin capsules; and (iv) such devices intended for internal or external use in the diagonsis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease or disorder in human beings or animals, as may be specified from time to time by the Central Government by notification in the official Gazette, after consultation with the Board." 9. Section 3(b) of the Drugs Act gives an inclusive definition of the term `drug' only and which is not exhausted. In fact `drug' itself has no meaning unless it is intended to be used as a preventive for any disease or disorder in human beings or animals. Therefore, the phrase ``an all substances intended to be used for, or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of any disease or disorder in human beings or animal" occurring in the language of the definition, helps to understand the meaning of term `drug'. As held in Chiman Lal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 665 the artificial definition includes a distinction between `medicine' and `Substances' which are not medicine strictly so called. The expression `Substances', therefore, must be something other than medicine but which are used for treatment. However, the appropriate meaning of the expression `Substances' in the Section is `drugs'. The definition of `drug' was amended and section 10A and Section 26A were inserted into the Act conferring power on the Central Government to Private Import of Drugs and Cosmetics in public interest as also to prohibit manufacture or distribution thereof. Though the Amended Act came into force w.e.f. 1st February, 1983 yet on account of certain proceedings taken in courts the powers conferred upon the Central Govt, were not available. Any way, Chapter IV of the Drugs Act deals with manufacture, sale and distribution of drugs and Cosmetics. Section 16 prescribes the standard of quality, Sections 17, 17A and 17B define `misbranded' `adulterated' and `aspurious' drugs and S. 18 prohibits manufactures and sale of such and other certain drugs. Section 22 confers powers on Drugs Inspector, inter-alia, to take samples of drugs for analysis and Section 23 lays down the procedure to be followed for the purpose. Section 24 obliges the keeper of the drug for sale to disclose the place where drugs are manufactured or kept Section 27 prescribes the penalty for manufacture, sale etc. of drugs in contravention of Chapter IV. Part VI of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 (Drugs Rules) regulates the sale of drugs and Rules 59, 60, 61, 62 to 62D, 63, 63A and 64 lay down the procedure for obtaining the requisite license. of drugs in contravention of Chapter IV. Part VI of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 (Drugs Rules) regulates the sale of drugs and Rules 59, 60, 61, 62 to 62D, 63, 63A and 64 lay down the procedure for obtaining the requisite license. Rule 65 prescribed conditions to be fulfilled for obtaining certain types of licenses and Rule 66 deals with powers of licensing authority to cancel and suspend the licenses so grated. It is thus evident that the Drugs Act means specific and exhaustive provisions to regulate the manufacture, sale and distribution of `drug' as defined in Section 3(b) of the Drugs Act, 10. The `Provitex' Powder and the 'HI-PRO' protein supplement, which are the subject or study in these petitions, are undoubtedly articles of food as they are meant for human consumption. But in the facts and circumstances of the present cases it is clearly established that those articles were intended to be used as a preventive for disease or disorder in human beings. Their constitutes were to supplement the protein deficiency in human organism and mechanism. They were, undisputedly, manufactured under the licenses issued under the provisions of the Drugs Act and the Rules made thereunder. They had the necessary labels on their containers and packings and were displayed and exhibited for sale at such premises which were permitted to be used for sale of medicines and drugs. All these factors attending on their sale by the petitioners to the Food Inspector clearly indicate that these substance were intended to be used as preventives for disease or disorder in human beings. This position takes these two articles of food out of the definition of the term `food' as given in Section 2(v) of Act of 1954 and make them fall within the purview of the term `drug' as defined in Section 2(b) Drugs Act. That being so these articles of food can neither be treated as `Adulterated' with the help of Rule 47 of the Rules framed under the Act of 1954 nor their sale to the Food Inspector be punished Under sections 7/T6 of that Act. That being so these articles of food can neither be treated as `Adulterated' with the help of Rule 47 of the Rules framed under the Act of 1954 nor their sale to the Food Inspector be punished Under sections 7/T6 of that Act. Therefore the prosecution of the petitioner in these petitions for offences under section 7/16 of Act of 1954 is inherently bad in law and the orders made by the trial Court for framing charges under section 7/16 against the petitioner suffer from the vice of illegal in invalid exercise of its jurisdiction. That being so the orders framing charges against the petitioners in these two cases for offences Under section 7/16 of Act of 1954 are required to be set-aside and the petitioner discharged. 11. In the result the charge Under section 7/16 of Act of 1954 framed against the petitioners in the two cases are quashed and the proceedings dropped. Both the petitions are allowed.Petition Allowed. *******