( 1 ) THESE four petitions under Artcle 226 of the Constitution, raise a common question of law, arising in similar circumstance, and they can conveniently be dealt with and disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) M/s. Khedan Lal and Sons, Varahasi (petitioner in writ petition Nos, 4613, 6792, 316) is a partnership firm. It manufactures, sells, stores, supplies and distributes Zarda (chewing. tobacco)through various dealers in the State. Outside dealers also place orders for the supply of tobacco manufactured by the firm. Sri Nand Kishore proprietor of Agra Sughandhi Bhandar, Agra (petitioner in writ petition No. 3930) Bhagwan Das and Sons, Narhi, Lucknow, Hanuman Pd. , narhi Lucknow, Rajendra Pd. , of Rana Bazar Baragaon Gonda, are some of the persons who deal in tobacco manufactured by M/s. Khedan Lal and Sons. In the months of January and April, 1975, various Food Inspectors obtained from the aforesaid dealers, samples of tobacco manufactured by M/s. Khedan Lal and Sons which, on analysis, were found to contain colouring material, use of which is prohibited by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Consequently, the petitioners are being prosecuted in various criminal cases at Lucknow, Gonda and Agra for committing offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

( 3 ) THE petitioners claim that tobacco manufactured by M/s. Khedan Lal and Sons is not food and does not fall within the purview of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. According to them, it has been so held in the cases of Abdul Karim v. State 1968 All WR (HC) 229 and khedan Lal and Sons v. State of U. P. 1970 All WR (HC) 239. They contend that correctly interpreted the ratio of the decision in the case of State of U. P. v. Sri Ram Gupta 1972 All WR (HC) 058 also is that tobacco becomes food only when it is placed in Paan and not otherwise. The petitioners do not sell tobacco after placing it in Paan, accordingly the tobacco sold by them does not fall within the purview of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The respondents are misconstruing the decision in Sri Ram Guptas case and are harassing the petitioners by repeatedly initiating criminal proceedings against them. The petitioners, therefore, pray that the criminal proceedings initiated against them be quashed and the respondents be asked not to harass them by initiating any fresh criminal proceedings against them in this regard.

( 4 ) THE case of the respondents on the other hand, is that this Court has, in Sri Ram Guptas case, clearly held that tobacoo of the nature manufactured by M/s. Khedan Lal and Sons is food and that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the Prevention of Food Adulteration act are perfectly in order.

( 5 ) ALTNOUGH, the petitioners have in their petition, described the tobacco manufactured by khedan Lal and Sons, as chewing Tobacco, respondents case in the counter-affidavit is that tobacco manufactured by M/s. Khedan Lal and Sons, described as pill Patti Zafrani and tambacco Zafarani, is meant to be taken with Paan, In their rejoinder affidavit they have described the tobacco in question as chewing Tobacco, which in fact is Khane Ki Tambacoo i. e. tambacoo meant to be eaten. In other words they concede that the tobacco with which they had been dealing was meant to be eaten with Paan Crucial question that, therefore, arises for our consideration in these petitions is whether the tobacco which is taken with Paan is food within the meaning of the words as used in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. We are in these cases not concerned with any other type of tobacco like tobacco which is used in cigarette etc. or which is used as snuff. In case it is held that the tobacco which is eaten with Paan is not food as defined in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it would fall outside the purview of that Act and the petitioners would be entitled to the relief claimed by them. If, on the other hand, it is found to be food the trial for