Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 : ss.7, 14, 16(1)(a)(i), 19(2) – Food Adulteration – Protection u/s. 19(2), to the vendor – Availability of – Appellant purchased ‘Pan Parag’ from the manufacturer through invoices and sold the same – Sample of ‘Pan masala’ collected from the business premises of the buyer of pan masala, from the appellant – Samples seized tested and found to be below standard – Appellant’s case that he is merely a vendor who purchased pan masala from the manufacturer in sealed packet and sold it to its customers; and that manufacturer had given warranty about the nature and quality of product sold, thus, pleaded protection u/s. 19(2) – Trial court gave the buyers the benefit of protection u/s. 19(2), however, held the appellant guilty u/s. 16(1)(a)(i) rw s. 7 – Order of conviction and sentence upheld by the courts below – On appeal, held: Sub-clause (ii) of s. 19(2)(a) 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 – Appellant was having a valid defence in terms of s. 19(2) as the packed item sold by him namely ‘Pan Parag’, was having a written warranty in prescribed form from the manufacturer – Hence, had the protection available u/s. 19(2)(a) – Impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside – Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 – r. 12A.
Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel and another v. State of Maharashtra State 1965(2) SCR 894 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.