Case title:
M/s SRI MAHAVIR AGENCY & ANR Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR
Date of Order:
April 17, 2023
Bench:
Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal
Parties:
Appellants: M/s SRI MAHAVIR AGENCY & ANR
Respondents: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
- Section 14 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, and dealers of any food article from selling to vendors without providing a written warranty about the nature and quality of the product in the prescribed form.
- The Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 12A outlines the procedure for providing the warranty, which can be included in the bill, cash memo, or label.
- The Proviso to Section 14 states that any bill, cash memo, or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food shall be deemed to be a warranty given by the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer.
- Furthermore, Form VIA provides the text of the warranty to be given. In essence, no food article can be sold to a vendor without a written warranty in the prescribed form, and the warranty can be included in the bill, cash memo, or invoice.
OVERVIEW:
- The person who appealed was accused of violating the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Specifically, they were charged under Section 16(1)(a)(i) and Section 7 of the Act.
- The Senior Municipal Magistrate in Calcutta found them guilty and sentenced them to six months of rigorous imprisonment.
- The appellant appealed this decision, but the Additional District & Sessions Judge in the Fast Track Court in Calcutta upheld the conviction and sentence in a judgment dated 26.06.2009.
- The appellant then filed a revision petition in the High Court in Calcutta, but it was dismissed on 08.06.2016.
- The appellant is now challenging this judgment in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
ISSUES RAISED:
- Whether the appellant is a valid vendor under the law
- Whether the appellant had a valid defense under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and if so, then set aside the impugned order of the High Court.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:
- The appellant's lawyer argued that their client was only a vendor who had purchased 'Pan Parag' pan masala in sealed packages from the manufacturer, M/s Kothari Pouches Limited, and sold it to customers.
- The manufacturer had given a warranty about the quality of the product in the form of a bill with a specific note.
- The appellant is protected under Section 19(2) of the Act, which allows for defences in prosecutions under the Act. However, the lower courts did not consider this argument and upheld the conviction.
- The appellant's lawyer responded to the arguments made by the respondents' lawyer by referring to a Constitution Bench judgment of the Court in Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel and another v. State of Maharashtra State.
- The appellant's lawyer argued that although the Act does not define the word "Vendor," it has been defined as a person who has sold the article of food alleged to be adulterated.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:
- On the other hand, the respondents' lawyer argued that this is a case in which samples of 'Pan Parag' pan masala were collected from the business premises of Chanda Aggarwal, who had bought the pan masala from the appellant.
- Initially, the complaint was filed against Chanda Aggarwal and Binod Agarwal, but they were given the benefit of protection under Section 19(2) of the Act.
- The appellant was later accused after producing a bill showing the purchase from them.
- The samples of the seized pan masala were tested twice, and both times they did not conform to the standards set for 'Pan Masala' under the Act and the Rules framed for it. The offence was clearly established.
- The respondents' lawyer also argued that a warranty must be given by the manufacturer or distributor in the prescribed form, and in this case, the appellant did not produce such a warranty.
- The lower courts have already made concurrent findings of fact, and the appellant cannot be allowed to go free only on technical grounds.
- Finally, the respondents' lawyer argued that the appellant could not be considered a vendor, and there is no reason to interfere with the lower court’s decision.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
- The document labeled Exhibit C/Annexure P-1, which is an invoice dated 12.08.1999 with the number 1377, shows that the appellant bought "Pan Masala" from M/s Kothari Pouches Ltd.
- The invoice contains a certification stating that the goods mentioned in it are of the nature and quality they purport to be.
- This certification is in compliance with the requirement of the law. Section 19(2) of the Act outlines the defences available to a vendor against prosecution under the Act.
- Sub-clause (ii) of Section 19(2)(a) provides that a vendor cannot be charged with an offence related to the sale of adulterated or misbranded food if they have a written warranty in the prescribed form from the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of the food.
- Therefore, the appellant has a valid defence under Section 19(2) of the Act as the "Pan Parag" that they sold had a written warranty in the prescribed form from the manufacturer.
- It was the appellant who sold the food item, having bought it from the manufacturer with the warranty as required by the Act and the Rules. Thus, the appellant is protected under Section 19(2)(a) of the Act.
- Although Section 20A of the Act provides for the inclusion of the manufacturer, distributor or dealer in a pending complaint, it was not pointed out during the hearing that any such action was taken.
- Therefore, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and final order of the High Court are set aside, and the appellant's bail bonds are discharged.
CONCLUSION:
- The conclusion is that the appellant had a valid defense in terms of Section 19(2) of the Act, as he purchased the 'Pan Masala' from a manufacturer who provided a written warranty in the prescribed form.
- The certification provided by the manufacturer shows that it was in compliance with the requirements of the law. As a result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and final order of the High Court are set aside, and the appellant's bail bonds stand discharged.
