What is the case about
The matter is preferred through an appeal by the appellant who is an accused in a complaint filed under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954.
The appeal is filed against the impugned order and judgement of the High Court at Calcutta wherein the revision petition filed by appellant to set aside the charges was dismissed.
Appellant purchased food item paan masala , namely ‘Pqn Parag’ , which is the adulterated food item in the case, from the manufacturer who had given a warranty for the quality and nature of the item to the appellant.
However, twice checking of the food sample gave contradictory results from the set standards under the Act and rules laid thereof. Thus, establishing the offence.
Contentions of the parties
The learned counsel of the appellant contended that the appellant was merely a ‘vendor ‘who purchased the alleged adulterated food item from the manufacturer in sealed packaging condition and further sold it to customers. Specific reference to Warranty was also given in the form of a bill to the appellant. Thus, it was prayed to dismiss the charges put on the appellant.
On the other hand, counsel of the respondent submitted that the failure of alleged adulterated food item to comply with the standards set under the act proves that offence oil committed. It was also contended that appellant cannot be said as vendor in the case at hand.
Observations made by the Court
The apex court emphasized on section 14 of the Act which places a bar on manufacturer or dealer or distributor to sell any article without warranty is given in writing about the quality of the item to the vendor.
Court allowed the appeal and set aside the imougend order and judgement of the HC in light of section 14 of the Act and rule 12A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 which prescribes the procedure to give warranty.
Court held that Section 19 of the given act will provide protection to the appellant. No offence is deemed to have been committed by the appellant in regard to sale of any adulterated or misbranded article since he had written warranty from the manufacturer.
Court held that appellant had valid defence under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
