' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---Petitioner here which is a manufacturer of Unani Medicines, syrups etc. Maintains that because of the quality of its products it has earned a name and reputation throughout Pakistan and even abroad. One of its manufactures, a syrup, under the trade name of Jam-e-Shirin, is said to be a very popular brand enjoying huge sales in the length and breadth of Pakistan while it is also exported to other countries around the globe. Such syrup is labelled to be made from pure natural ingredients of refined sugar, distilled Aquas extracts of herbs, Keeora, Rose, Sandal, Ushna, Khass, food colours, preservatives. In extenso, the label carries . The following representation:--- "Jam-e-Shirin, delightfully refreshing, pleasant tasting, efficacious syrup. Jam-e-Shirin is made from distillate of pure natural ingredients, without a drop of water this is why the exclusive taste and quality of Jam-e-Shirin never deteriorate.
' Use it with water , milk, Lassiee, or fruit juice etc. 'Note.--You may fmd suspended particles in syrup which are active ingredients released by the extracts and kept purposely as they are good for health, so shake the bottle before use"
' Ingredients Refined sugar, distilled aquas of herbs, keora, rose, sandal, Ushna, Khass, food colours, preservatives."
' The petitioner has appended with the petition the labels of two other well-known brands, produced and sold in the country namely, Rooh Afza and Naurus, the first a product of Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf) Pakistan and the second a manufacture of Ahmed Food Industries (Pvt.)
Limited. The ingredients of Rooh Afza are, "sugar, distilled aqua extracts of fruits, herbs, Keora, flowers and rose", colours used stated to be edible and harmless whereas Naurus is shown to be containing "sugar, aqua flowers, aqua fruits, aqua herbs, aqua vegetables, citric acid and food colour".
' The petitioner has maintained that it has added nothing in the food article by way of flavour and accordingly was not subject to a requirement under section 7(b) of the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, (Rule 7(b) to endorse the words "natural flavour or artificial flavour" on the label of the syrup. Like has been claimed to be the position in relation to Rooh Afza and Naurus quoted, as above, for comparison.
' However, the Food Inspectors of the respondent No,2, Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, under the Director Health of the Corporationd are alleged to have visited several areas of the city of Karachi and obtained more than 75 samples from the agencies, stores and shops for analysis and seized more than 3,000 bottles of the said syrup viz. Jam-e-Shirin, also sealing more than 6,000 bottles at various locations. The reason for so doing at the time, was stated to be an information/complaint that the syrup in question contained ingredients injurious to health. However, on 21-2-1994 the following news item, inter alia, appeared in daily Dawn, Karachi, which recorded quite a different development:--- "BEVERAGE SAMPLES FOUND 'NON-GENUINE'
' By our Staff Reporter.
' KARACHI, February 20: All 75 samples of the beverage 'Jam-i-Shirin' have been found 'non- genuine' as the pre-packed bottles did not conform to the laid-down standard, failing to make a mention of the flavour therein.
' This was disclosed by the Director, Health Department, Dr. Sikandar Ali Panhwar, on Sunday.
' He said Food Inspectors had collected over 3,000 bottles of the syrup from the market prior to Ramzan on a complaint.
' Of them, 75 samples were drawn and sent to the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation Food Laboratory which found that the labels pasted on the bottles did not indicate the ' flavour' which had been used for the beverages.
' This act of the manufacturer-Qarshi Industries (Dawakhana Division) based at Hattar, N.-W.F.P-- Contravenes the provisions of rule 7(b) which is punishable under section 7 of the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, which provides a maximum punishment of five years' simple imprisonment and fine or both but not less than six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs,500.
' The Health Services Director said that prosecution was being launched in the Municipal Court in this regard."
' It has been urged that the sampling, seizure, sealing, as aforesaid, is contrary to law and even mala tide because other manufacturers, adopting similar modes of labelling, have not so much as even been touched. At the time the case was first laid in Court we passed the following order:- "Contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner has contravened no provision of the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, or for the matter of that any other law so as to warrant any action against the petitioner at the instance of the respondents Nos.2 and 3. It is maintained that the petitioner's product 'Jam-e-Shirin' contains no added flavour as such and the only taste that it carries is a natural taste, without any defined flavour as such. There are other products in the market as well, which fall within the same category and no action has been taken against them.
The implication is obvious: action against the petitioner is mala fide. Issue notices to the respondents as well as the A.-G., Sindh, notices going in the ordinary course, by registered post and under certificate of posting."
' The parties have since submitted counter-affidavits and rejoinders. Relevant defence as contained in paras. 8, 9 and 10 of the counter-affidavit of the Deputy Director, Health Services, K.M.C., is this :--- "8. That the contents of para. 5 of the petition are denied as stated. In rule 7(b) of Pure Food Rules, 1965 a producer should clearly mention/print on the label of his product whether the flavour which has been used by him is 'NATURAL' or ' ARTIFICIAL'. But in the case of the petitioner he did not mention on the label of his product whether the flavour used by him is natural or artificial. Thus he has violated the provisions of the Pure Food Ordinance and Rules 1960 and 1965.
9. As regards para. 6 of the petition it is submitted that K.M.C. Officials take action against the manufacturers/producers/sellers of Beverage and 'other food products, found violating the provisions of Pure Food Ordinance/Rules. K.M.C. Officials have also collected samples of beverage/cold drinks/syrups from different companies/markets/shops and in some of the cases where food articles were found suspected to be injuries to health or unfit, the stock seized as per food law, and that was also subjected to similar legal proceedings. In the year 1993 K.M.C. Has taken 174 samples of beverage and 59 samples of syrups and the same were sent to the Public Analyst K.M.C. Who declared 168 samples of beverage and 43 samples of syrups as non-genuine and violating the labelling rules and K.M.C. Also seized 1248 bottles of beverages and 50 bottles of syrup as per food laws and their cases have also been sent to the KMC Court for punishment/trial.
10. That the contents of para. 6 of the petition are denied as stated. K.M.C. Authorities received a complaint against the Jam-e-Shireen Syrup containing an insect in the bottle. The K.M.C.
Authorities directed the officials to collect samples of syrup Jam-e-Shireen. Accordingly 75 samples of the said syrup were collected and 3137 bottles were seized and kept in the custody of the parties as per section 17(3) of the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960. Photo copy of the complaint is enclosed herewith. It is further submitted that the above samples were sent to the Public Analyst, K.M.C. Who declared them to be non-genuine. Photo copy of the report/certificate of the public analyst KMC is enclosed herewith at Annex.A. The public analysts KMC in her report has clearly mentioned that rule 7(b) of Food Rules, 1967 has been violated."
' As to the private complaint which is the basis for initiating action against the petitioner, we have examined the same and its two Annexures in the light of the petitioner's rejoinder. Such is a remarkably concise communication dated 31-1-1994, bereft of even necessary particulars of the principal, addressed by Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Aqeel of M/s. Aqeel Associates, Law Consultants, on behalf of one Abul Khair son of Moazzem Husain, resident of Karachi, saying that the said Abul Khair has submitted two samples, one of Qarshi Industries and the other of Mehran Bottlers (Pvt.) Limited for the addressee to make it covenient and arrange to take legal action. There are, however, two Annexures attached with the letter dated 31-1-1994 one of which is a notice of . Mr. Inamul Hassan, Advocate, dated 20-9-1992 and the other a notice of the referred M/S. Aqeel Associates dated 17- 8-1993, each on behalf of the same Abul Khair but having two different residential addresses, the first pertaining to the purchase of a bottle of "Qarshi of M/S. Qarshi Industries" (sic) in the name of JAM-E-SHIRIN bearing Batch No, Nil, Manufacturing Packing No,750, on 12-9-1992 in which an insect was located and the second, a purchase of the products of M/s. Mehran Bottles (Pvt.) Limited on the occasion of a pasty on August 14, 1993, thrown by the said Abul Khair alleging that insects and bees were found in their bottles, taking which the guests started vomiting, fell unconscious and even hospitalised in emergency. Inter alia, damages were sought against the petitioner and the above Mehran Bottlers (Pvt.) Limited through such notices dated 20-9-1992 and 17-8-1993. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has dubbed the said Abul Khair as a fake person. It has also been maintained that the action by the respondents, disputed in the petition, has been taken nearly after two years and in such a hurried and drastic fashion. Correspondingly, nil/minimal action has been taken against the referred Mehran Bottlers though the allegations were more serious against them. To us in Court, the offending bottle was shown and it did have an antsubmerged in the syrup, which could be seen by naked eyes. The petitioner's learned counsel, however, pointed out that the bottle did not carry any batch number the product was never produced by the petitioner and, at any event, the action of seizure and sealing was proved to be not having any nexus whatsoever with the detection of the insect in the syrup offered by the complainant as the Public Analyst's (respondent No,4) report would show. Indeed it was pointed out that the entire samples/seizures/sealings of the respondents for the years 1991 to 1993 as the chart, produced upon requisition, would reveal did not contain as many bottles as those resorted to in relation to the petitioner.. Resultantly, it has been maintained that, the petitioner's business, has not only been jeopardised but brought to a standstill by the conduct of the respondents, who clearly have acted recklessly and illegally with the mala fide object of causing loss to the petitioner to the advantage of the petitioner's competitors in trade and that too during the peak month of Ramzan.
' Before we take up the respective contentions of the parties it would be convenient to examine the various legal provisions which have been referred to at the bar in support of or to resist the petition.
Such are sections 2(9), 4, 17, 19 and 21 of the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 and Rules 2(xiii), (xiv), (xviii), 3 and 7, all of which are reproduced hereunder: "Pure Food Ordinance, 1960
2. Definitions.--In this Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions shall have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say---
(9) food' means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs, and includes---
(i) any substance which is intended for use in the composition or preparation of food;
(ii) any flavouring matter or condiment;
(iii) any colouring matter intended for use in food;
(iv) chewing gum and other products of the like nature; and
(v) water in any form, including ice, intended for human consumption or for use in the composition or preparation of food. Explanation.--An article shall not cease to be food by reason only that it is also capable of being used as a medicine.
4. Prohibition of mixing and selling mixed food.--(1) No person shall mix, colour, stain or powder or direct or permit any other person to mix, colour, stain, or powder any food with any matter or ingredient--
(a) in contravention of the prescribed rules; or
(b) so as to render the food injurious to health with intent that the same may be sold in that state.
(2) No person shall sell, offer, keep, or store any good so mixed, coloured, stained or powdered.
6. Prohibition of sale or manufacture for sale of food which is adulterated or, misbranded or not of the nature, substance or equality demanded.--(1) No person shall, directly, or indirectly himself or by any other person, prepare, manufacture, keep or store for sale, or sell or offer to sell any food---
(a) which is adulterated;
(b) which is misbranded;
(c) which is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded, or which it purports or is represented to be;
(d) for the sale of which a licence is required otherwise than in accordance with the condition of the licence;
(e) in contravention of any other provision of this Ordinance or the rules.
(2) No person shall directly or indirectly, himself or by any other person, manufacture, sell, offer to sell, keep or store for sale any food notified in this behalf by Government, unless it is coloured in the manner prescribed.
(3) Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, prohibit or regulate the keeping, in any factory or wholesale business premises in which such articles of food as are specified in the notification are manufactured or stored, or any substances likely to be used as adulterants as so specified.
17. General powers of Inspectors. --(1) An Inspector may detain and search any vehicle or package Of any food intended for sale or in the course of delivery if he has reason to suspect that the food therein carried or contained may be injurious to health, unwholesome or unfit for human consumption or is not of the same nature, substance quality which it purports to be: ' Pro Wed that nothing in.This section shall authorise the detention of any vehicle belonging to the Railways.
(2) An Inspector may:--
(i) enter into and inspect any market, godown, shop, stall or other place used for the sale of any food intended for human consumption or for the preparation, manufacture, or storage of any such food for the purposes of trade or sale;
(ii) enter upon any premises for the purposes of exercising the powers of purchasing or taking a sample under section 18 and may in such premises inspect and examine any food and any apparatus, utensil or vessel used for preparing, manufacturing or containing such food;
(iii) enter into and inspect any market, godown, shop, stall or other place used for the manufacture, storage or sale of any apparatus, utensil or vessel ordinarily used or intended to be used or likely to be used for preparing, manufacturing or containing any food.
(3) If any such food as is mentioned in subsection (1) or clause (i) of subsection (2) appears to the Inspector to be injurious to health, unwholesome, unfit for human consumption or not of the same nature, substance or quality which it purports to be or not fulfilling the prescribed conditions subject to which such food is to be prepared, manufactured, kept, stored or sold or if any such apparatus or utensil as is mentioned in clause (ii) of subsection (2) is of such kind or in such state as to render any food prepared, manufactured or contained therein unwholesome or unfit for human consumption or injurious to health, he may seize and remove such food, apparatus or utensil to be dealt with as hereinafter provided.
(4) An Inspector may, instead of removing such food, apparatus, utensil or vessel seized under subsection (3), leave the same in the custody of the person from whose possession, custody or control the same was seized or in such safe custody as he may deem fit, so as to be dealt with as hereinafter provided; and he may at any time thereafter remove the same to the custody of the Local Authority concerned.
(5) (a) When any food, apparatus, utensil or vessel is seized under subsection (3), it may be destroyed by the officer making the seizure with the consent in writing of the owner or the person in whose possession, custody or control it is found.
(b) If any food seized under subsection (3) is of a perishable nature and is, in the opinion of the Inspector, unsound, unwholesome or unfit for human consumption, it may be destroyed without such consent but in the presence of two respectable witnesses.
(6) An Inspector shall prepare a statement describing the food, apparatus or utensil seized and shall deliver a copy thereof to the Local Authority and to person from whose custody the food, apparatus or utensil is seized or, if such person be not present, send such copy to him by post.
(7) (a) Any person claiming anything seized under subsection (3) may within seven days of the seizure complain to any Magistrate of the First or Second Class having jurisdiction at the place of seizure, who, after making such enquiry as he may deem necessary, may either confirm or disallow such seizure wholly or in part or may order the article to be restored to the claimant.
(b) If the Magistrate confirms the seizure, the food, apparatus, utensil or vessel, as the case may be, shall be forfeited to the Food Authority concerned or the Magistrate may direct that such food, apparatus, utensil or vessel may be destroyed or disposed of at the cost of the owner or person in whose possession, custody or control it was found at the time of the seizure in such manner as to prevent the same being again sold, kept, stored or used as food or for the manufacture or preparation of, or for containing, any such food.
(8) If no complaint is made within the said period of seven days, the article of food or the apparatus, utensil or vessel, as the case may be seized shall be confiscated to the Food Authority concerned.
19. Right of private persons to have samples analysed.--(1) Any person may make an application in writing to an Inspector asking him to purchase a sample of such food and from such person as may be specified in the application and to submit such sample to the Public Analyst for analysis.
(2) The cost of the sample purchased and of the analysis done under subsection (1) shall be payable by the person making the application: ' Provided that, in case the sample is found by the Public Analyst to be adulterated, any amount paid by the applicant under this subsection shall be refunded to him.
21. Certificate of Analyst.--(1) The Public Analyst upon receiving any Food or a sample of food from the Inspector shall, as soon as possible, analyse the same and deliver or send to the Inspector forwarding the sample, on payment of such fees as may be prescribed, a certificate in the form specified in the schedule showing the result of the analysis.
(2) A copy of such certificate may be obtained from the Public Analyst by the person from whom the article so analysed was purchased or obtained on payment of a fee of two rupees.
(3) No persons shall display any such copy on his premises or use such copy as an advertisement."
Pure Food Rules, 1965 "2. Definitions.--In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions shall have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say---
(xiii) 'label' means a display of written, printed or graphic matter upon the immediate container of any article and upon the retail package of such article, unless it is easily legible through the outside container or wrapper;
(xiv) 'labelling' means all labels and other written, printed or graphic matter---
(i) upon an article or any of its containers, wrappers, or
(ii) accompanying such article; (xviii) 'owner' shall include consignor, consignee, indentor, imprtor, agent, broker, commission agent, manufacturer's or seller's agent and or the person in possession of the food.
3. Warranty.--Every trader selling an article of food to a vendor shall, if the vendor so requires, deliver to the vendor a warranty in From 4: ' Provided that no warranty shall be necessary if the label on the article of food or the cash memo.
In respect of that article contains a warranty certificate that the food contained in the package or container or mentioned in the cash memo. Is the same in nature, substance and quality as demanded by the vendor.
7. Flavouring compounds in food.--The addition to any article of food of any flavouring compound in contravention of the following clauses shall be deemed to be contravention within the meanig of section 4:
(a) No food shall contain any flavouring compounds which are by themselves toxic or contain as contaminate materials which are toxic.
(b) Any food which contains any natural flavouring compounds shall be labelled with the legend '
Natural Flavour' or 'Contains Natural Flavouring' provided that only those flavouring compounds which have been obtained from fruits or plants by extraction with suitable harmless solvents, by distillation by expression or by any other suitable process shall be considered as natural.
(c) Any food which contains any artificial flavouring compound shall be labelled with the legend '
Artificial Flavour' or Immitation Flavour": ' Provided that where a food contains a mixture of both natural and artificial flavourig compounds it shall be lablled as 'Artificial Flavour': ' Provided further that those flavouring compounds which have been obtained by chemical synthesis shall be considered as artificial."
' The first and foremost objection of the respondents is as to the maintainability of this petition. It is urged that the petitioner has no locus standi to bring the petition because the allegedly offending goods were never secured from its possession and it has no title or interest in such goods. The position on the factual plane is denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner who has maintained that ownership in bulk of the goods had not passed because such had been supplied to the traders at Karachi on credit. Be that as it may, the definition of the word "owner" in rule 2(xviii) of the Pure Food Rules, 1965, is not self limiting but of a broadening character and includes in the category a "consignor, consignee, indentor, importer, agent, broker, commission agent, manufacturer's or seller's agent and/or the person in possession of the food'. If, therefore, a manufacturer's agent can be included in the defined expanded concept of ownership, for obvious reasons, the manufacturer itself cannot be excluded from the definition. Besides, the petitioner, as consignor, specifically, figures in the defined version. The petitioner, accordingly, was an owner within the terms of the Pure Food Rules, 1965. Further, as the press report and the other material, quoted above, would indicate, the complaint was against the petitioner and it was the petitioner who was sought to be affected through the impugned action. The petition, as brought, is therefore, maintainable.
' In the context of maintainability itself, it was next urged that the petitioner, if it was aggrieved, could have lodged a complaint within the terms of section 17(3) of the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, before the concerned Magistrate who could either confirm or disallow the seizure, wholly or in part, or could have restored the articles to the petitioner but since no such complaint was lodged, under section 17(7) of the Ordinance it is a "person claiming anything seized" who has the option to lodge the relevant complaint. The petitioner here, on its part, does not claim the articles to be returned to it. It barely questions the allegedly offending action as the manufacturer of the goods and in so far as the return of the articles is concerned such would be returnable, if at all, to those from whom the same were seized. Further, subsections (7) and (8) of section 17 only postulate one remedy and do not rule out any other or others; To be specific the Constitutional remedy under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan neither is nor can be taken away by a sub-constitutional 8 legislation. The petitioner's remedy in Constitutional jurisdiction, accordingly, has in no way been affected by any special remedies provided by the special law namely, the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder.
' As to merits, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that in terms of rule 7(b) of the Pure Food Rules, 1965, any "food which contains any natural flavouring compounds shall be labelled with the legend 'NATURAL FLAVOUR' or 'CONTAINS NATURAL FLAVOURING'....".
Correspondingly, it is urged that, as no such legend, has. Been inscribed on the label of the offending product, rule 7(b) aforesaid has been violated, inviting action and consequential penalties. At her, end, the Public Analyst, upon reference, has returned a finding that the food is "non-genuine". In order to fully assess the fundamentals of the respondent's case, we called the Public Analyst in person and have also heard her. She too has maintained that because the quoted legend is missing in the label affixed on the marketed bottles of "Jam-e-Shireen", rule 7(b) aforesaid has been transgressed. She also referred to the definition of the word "food" in section 2(9) of the Pure Food Ordinance, 1965, and urged that "any flavouring matter or condiment" is as much within the definition Of "food" as any other substance properly so-called. Correspondingly, reliance was placed on section 4 of the same Ordinance for the prohibition that "no person shall mix, colour, stain or powder or direct or permit any other person to mix, colour, stain or powder any food with any matter or ingredient.", inter alia, "in contravention of the prescribed rules". Accordingly to the Public Analyst since mixing of "flavouring compound" took place, attracting the provisions of section 4(1), and due labelling of the legend, as required by rule 7(b), was omitted, the product was found to be "non-genuine". On our query as to what was signified in terming the product as "non- genuine", the Public Analyst answered that this is how the relevant form was worded and a product could either be found "genuine" or "non-genuine".
We regret to say that the whole subject has erroneously been approached by the functionaries.
Under the operative part of rule 7 it is only the "addition to any article of food of any flavouring compound", in contravention of the clause which ensue, that could relevantly be deemed to be a contravention within the meanings of section 4 of the Ordinance. In other words, only when a "flavouring compound" is added to any article of food that rule 7 aforesaid would come into play and it is only then that under clause (b) of rule 7 the relevant food product shall have to be labelled with the requisite legend. The case of the petitioner is that no flavouring compound, as such, was so added and the flavour the syrup carries is the sum total of the, combined flavours of the various ingredients, which together constitute the manufactured outcome. Contention is that it is therefore and as no identifiable flavouring agent, natural or artificial, was added for the purpose of achieving flavouring that no legend was required to or come to be labelled. Correspondingly, when questioned the respondents have failed to identify any flavouring agent specifically added. The petitioner's contention, accordingly is not without force.
Another aspect of the matter may also be taken up and disposed of here. Relying on the definition of the word "food" in section 2(9) of the Ordinance, where the term includes also "any flavouring matter or condiment", it has been urged for the respondents that "flavouring matter" itself falling within the concept of "food" mixing the same, in the face of the prohibition in section 4 of the Ordinance, in contravention of the Rules, is by itself actionable and the petitioner has correctly been proceeded against. The catch lies in connecting the act of mixing a "flavouring matter" with its corelative viz. "in contravention of the prescribed rules". The relevant rule, as discussed, is Rule 7(b) and there it is only "addition" to any Food of any flavouring compound" which is involved and no such "addition' is shown to have been made by the petitioner. While clause (b) of rule 7 is conditioned by the opening words in the rule and cannot stand by itself, even if we accord limited but exclusive meaning to clause (b) and find that whenever "a food item contains" any "flavouring compounds" due labelling of the legend is called for, such would still make no difference because no "flavouring compound" is conceded by the petitioner In the syrup and none whatever has been found or isolated, as subsisting therein, by the respondents.
We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that no contravening use, mixing or addition of any flavouring agent in relation to the product in question took place much as has been the case with similar other products, made mention of by the petitioner, namely, "Rooh Afza" and "Naurus", regarding which the respondents, admittedly, have never alleged any contravention whatsoever. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has been singled out for treatment, which is not in accordance with law and which also impinges upon the various Constitutional guarantees to which every person in Pakistan is entitled.
There are other aspects of the matter too. Thus, the action, which was initiated on a private complaint, was initiated without adequate identity of the aggrieved party. It was set afoot far too belatedly. It retained no nexus with the complaint. Other and unrelated vistas were opened up, totally unmindful of similar so-called infringements too obvious in the trade to overlook. The magnitude itself of the action was, to put it very mildly, unprecedented and fearsome. Thousands of bottles of the syrup, quite disproportionately to the situation, were rounded up and at a time when due to the advent of the holy month of Ramadan it was likely to hit the petitioner in the hardest manner conceivable and probably, as claimed by the petitioner, at the same time provided its competitors with a field-day. Above all, loss of reputation and goddwill compounded by the Director Health, respondent No,3, going to the press, cannot have been small. These are all facts, indicating lurking mala fides, which cannot be overlooked. A mala fide act is no act at all in law.
We have, therefore, found fit to and allowed, this petition and declared the offending action to be without lawful authority. Resultantly, we have directed the return and unsealing of the seized material. The return, of course, will be made to the persons from whom the articles were obtained.
The restriction/prohibition to trade in the allegedly offending article of "food" has also been lifted.
The petitioner or any other person aggrieved would, in due course, have remedies for any other cause of action or actions available at law. Grant of the petition would carry necessary cost.
' The foregoing are the reasons for a short order through which the petition was disposed of.