Bail SlipThe v. State

Bail SlipThe Appellants/Accused 1 to 3 viz., 1.S.P.Jaswanth Kumar, 2. Santhakumar and 3. Bhojan were directed to be released on bail in and bythe order of this Court date 24.9.99 and made in Crl.MP.No.8264 of 1999 in Crl.A.No.770 of 199.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:14.06.2006CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMARCRL.APPEAL No.770 of 19991.S.P.Jaswanth Kumar2.Santhakumar3.Bhojan ... AppellantsVersusState rep. by Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D.,Coimbatore. (Crime No.34/99). ... RespondentCriminal Appeal filed under Section 12 AB of Essential CommoditiesAct read with Section 372 of Criminal Procedure Code against theconviction and sentence passed on the petitioner by the Presiding Officerfor Special Court for E.C./NDPS Act cases for the Districts of Coimbatore, Erode and Nilgiris at Coimbatore on 7.9.1999 for offences under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for the violation of Clause 3,4 and 5 of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of Standard) Order 1977 to undergo six months of simple imprisonment on 3counts and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/-respectively on 3 counts in default to undergo 45 days of simpleimprisonment in so far as as the Ist Accused/Ist Appellant is concernedand in so far as the 2 and 3 accused/2nd and 3rd Appellant are concerned toundergo 3 months simple imprisonment on 3 counts and each to pay a fine ofRs.2000/-,2000/- and 1000/- respectively on 3 counts in default each toundergo 3 weeks of simple imprisonment under Section 264 Cr.P.C. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellants : Mr.N.Ishtiag Ahmed For Respondent: Mr.N.Kumanan, Govt. Advocate(Crl. Side).JUDGEMENTThe appellants are accused 1 to 3 in S.T.C.No.4 of 1999 on the fileof the Special Court for E.C./NDPS Act cases for the Districts of Coimbatore, Erode and Nilgiris. The first appellant is Proprietor, thesecond appellant is a Tea maker and the third appellant is an Accountantof Messers Sayar Industries.

The case of the prosecution is that on 18.2.1999 P.W.4 along withP.Ws.1 and 2 inspected the Sayar Industries and found several bags oftea, from which samples were taken and marked as AS1, AS2 and AS3,BS1, BS2and BS3 and CS1,CS2 and CS3. The seized materials were adulterated tea andthe samples were marked under Ex.P15, P17 and P18. Hence the accused wereprosecuted for the offence under Clause 3,4 and 5 of Tamil nadu ScheduledArticles (Prescription of Standards) Order, 1977 punishable under Section7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955.

On behalf of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Exhibits P.1 to P21 were marked. On the side of the accused no witness wasexamined and no document was marked. On conclusion of trial, the learnedSpecial Judge came to the conclusion that the offences alleged against theaccused are proved and he convicted the accused to undergo six months ofsimple imprisonment on 3 counts and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-,Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively on 3 counts in default to undergo45 days of simple imprisonment in so far as as the Ist Accused/IstAppellant is concerned and in so far as the 2 and 3 accused/2nd and 3rdAppellants are concerned to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment on 3counts and each to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-,2000/- and 1000/- respectivelyon 3 counts in default each to undergo 3 weeks of simple imprisonmentunder Section 264 Cr.P.C. Hence the appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that since Teais not foodstuff, it cannot be included under Clause 3,4 and 5 of Tamilnadu Scheduled Article (Prescription of Standards) Order, 1977punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955. Insupport of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellantssubmitted a judgement reported in 2003 AIR SCW 5935 (S.Samuel,M.D.Harrisons Malayalam and another vs. Union of India and others) inwhich the Honourable Supreme Court Judges held as follows: "12. We would first examine whether tea is a 'foodstuff'.The term food stuff (including edible oilseeds and oils) is notdefined by the EC Act. Resort shall have to be had to themeaning of the term 'foodstuff' in common parlance, in thecommercial world and amongst the consumers--where tea is sold, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ purchased and consumed. 'Foodstuffs' and 'tea' are commonlysold and bought in the market and are consumer items.

As an upshot of the above discussion, also keeping inview the judicial exposition of the terms ‘foodstuffs’ and‘tea’. We are definitely of the opinion that tea is notfoodstuff. Even in a wider sense as dealt with in VirkumarGulabchand Shah’s case(supra) “foodstuffs” will not includetea as tea either in the form of the leaves or in the form ofbeverage does not go into the preparation of food proper tomake it more palatable and digestible. Tea leaves are noteaten. Tea is a beverage produced by steeping tea leaves orbuds of the tea plants in boiled water. Such ‘tea’ is consumedhot or cold for its flavour, taste and its quality as astimulant. The stimulating effect is caused by the presence ofcaffeine therein. ‘Tea’ neither nourishes the body nor sustainsor promotes its growth. It does not have a nutritional value. It does not help formation of enzymes nor does it enableanabolism. Tea or its beverage does not go into the preparationof any foodstuff.