Judgment

DUA, J.: - These eight appeals with certificate (Crl. Appeals Nos. 151 to 158 of 1966), raise a common question of law and would, therefore, be disposed of by a common judgment. Indeed, all the appeals in the Punjab High Court were also disposed of by a learned single Judge of that Court sitting on circuit at Delhi by a common judgment and another learned single Judge of the same Court similarly certified the cases to be fit for appeal to this Court by a common order.

2. The only question canvassed at the bar requiring determination by us is whether the respondent is liable to be prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 37 of 1954 (hereafter called the Adulteration Act) for selling adulterated vinegar when the vinegar is being sold under a licence granted under the Fruit Products Order, 1955 (hereafter called the Fruit Order) made by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The High Court has, relying on an unreported Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in State v. Raj Kumar, (Crl. A. 996 of 1961, D/- 29-10-1962 (Punj)), held that they cannot be prosecuted. It was argued in the High Court that the rules made under the Adul