The restrictions imposed by the rules under the Bombay Prohibition Act (25 of 1949) on the sale and consumption of medicinal preparations containing alcohol were reasonable and did not violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Arts. 19(1)(g) and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.

M.C. CHAGLA, C.J. :- The first petitioners are a private limited company carrying on the business of importers, merchants and dealers in medicinal preparations containing alcohol including Halls Wine throughout India, and the second petitioner is the Managing Director and one of the major shareholders of the first petitioner company. It appears that in the beginning of January, 1952 the first petitioners were appointed sole agents for India for Halls Wine which is manufactured by Stephen Smith and Co. of United Kingdom. The second petitioner buys, possesses and consumes Halls Wine for the purpose of his health and according to him this Wine is productive of the beneficial effects of invigoration, strength and energy. The petition from which this appeal arises has been filed on the ground that the fundamental rights of the first petitioner company under Art. 19 (1) (g) and the fundamental rights of the second petitioner under Art. 19 (1) (f) in respect of Halls Wine have been affected by certain legislation passed by the State Government. It is urged by the first petitioner company that their right to carry on business and to sell Halls Wine has been interfered with and it is alleged by the second petitioner that his right to buy, possess and consume Halls Wine has also been interfered with by the impugned legislation.

2. In order to understand the contentions of the parties it is necessary to go back to the legislative history in connection with the Prohibition law in our State. The policy of Prohibition was enforced in this State by Act, 25 of 1949 which came into force on the 16th June, 1949. That Act was challenged before this Court and this Court gave a judgment coming to the conclusion that certain portions of that Act were invalid. The Full Bench held that the State Legislature was not competent to legislate with regard to medicinal and toilet preparations and it also held that to the extent that all medicinal and toilet preparations came within the ambit of the Prohibition law, that part of the law constituted an unreasonable restriction upon the fundamental rights of the citizens. In coming to this conclusion it is important to bear in mind that we put particular emphasis on the fact that the legitimate use of medicinal preparations was prohibited merely because those medicinal preparations might be converted by an addict to an illegitimate use. We gave an illustration in that judgment of eau-de-cologne which is a toilet article and we pointed out that merely because a person might choose to drink eau-de-cologne as liquor because he could not satisfy his thirst otherwise, there was no justification for preventing a large body of citizens from making a legitimate use of that toilet article. There was an appeal from our decision and the matter was decided by the Supreme Court and the judgment is reported in State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara, 53 Bom LR 982: (AIR 1951 SC 318) (A). The Supreme Court did not agree with us that the Legislature had no competence to legislate with regard to medicinal and toilet preparations, but with respect it agreed with us in the view that we had taken with regard to the violation of fundamental rights, and at page 997 (of Bom LR) : (at p. 328 of AIR) the Supreme Court cited with approval a passage from the judgment of the Full Bench :

"Therefore, we hold that to the extent to which the Prohibition Act prevents the possession, use and consumption of non-beverages and medicines and toilet preparations containing alcohol for legitimate purposes the provisions are void as offending against Art. 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution even if they may be within the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature."

Having agreed with the Full Bench, the Supreme Court declared certain provisions of the Act as invalid and those with which we are concerned are clause (c) of S. 12, so far as it affects the selling or buying of such medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol; clause (d) of