Protection U/s. 19(2) Of Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act Is Available To Vendor If Food Article Is Purchased With Written Warranty- SC
The Supreme Court has observed that protection under Section 19(2)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act), in relation to the sale of adulterated food is available to a vendor if it is proved that the vendor purchased the article of food from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed that “...Sub-clause (ii) of Section 19(2)(a) of the Act provides that a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves that he purchased the article of food from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in prescribed form. Accordingly, the appellant was having a valid defence in terms of Section 19(2) of the Act as the packed item sold by him namely ‘Pan Parag’ was having a written warranty in prescribed form from the manufacturer.”
Advocate A.K. Sengupta appeared for the appellant and Advocate Sunil Fernandes appeared for the respondent.
In this case, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months by Senior Municipal Magistrate for offences punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Upon an appeal, Additional District & Sessions Judge upheld the conviction.
Thereafter, the Criminal Revision Petition was preferred before the Calcutta High Court against the order, which was dismissed. Aggrieved of it, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was merely a vendor who purchased food item pan masala namely, ‘Pan Parag’ from M/s Kothari Pouches Limited, the manufacturer, in sealed packaged condition and sold it to its customers.
It was also submitted that in terms of Section 14 of the Act, the manufacturer had given a warranty about the nature and quality of the product sold by them. Therefore, protection in the form of defenses was available to the appellant under Section 19(2) of the Act.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the samples of seized pan masala were tested twice, but both times the sample did not conform to the standards laid down for ‘Pan Masala’ under the Act and Rules framed thereof and the tests failed. Moreover, there was no warranty produced for the nature and quality of the product by the appellant.
The Apex Court noted that there is a bar on the manufacturer or distributor or dealer to sell any article to any vendor unless he has given a warranty in writing about the nature and quality of such article to the vendor.
Further, it noted that the cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in, such article to the vendor thereof should be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer, distributor or dealer.
“A perusal of the aforesaid certification given by the manufacturer of the ‘Pan Masala’ shows that it was in terms of the requirement of law.” observed the Court.
Therefore, the Court remarked that the appellant had a valid defense in terms of Section 19(2) of the Act as the packed item sold had a written warranty in the prescribed form from the manufacturer.
Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed.
Cause Title- M/S Sri Mahavir Agency & Anr. v. The State Of West Bengal & Anr.
