1996(1) Supreme 741
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
M/s. Murlidhar Shyamlal & Anr. -Appellants
versus
State of Assam -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1996
Decided on 18-1-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : M.L. Lahoty, Ms. Sangita Pandey, P.S. Jha and Pawan Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ms. Manjula Gupta, Advocate.
(ii) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Sections 7/16 and 19(2)-Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955-Rule 12-A r/w Form VI-A-Form of Warranty -Mustard oil sold in sealed Tin-Tin containing label-But not in the form of warranty-Whether appellant can be absolved of liability of being prosecuted of mustard oil is found adulterated ? (No) (Para 9)-Cash Memo relied for warranty but not produced-Warranty cannot be informed (Para 10)-Reversal of acquittal & imposition of sentence up-held. (Para 10)
Held : We are afraid that we cannot accept the contention. In view of the above warranty as envisaged under Form VI-A, there must be specific mention therein by the dealer or distributor or manufacturer, that the article of food sold was in the same nature and quality of the article of food, as the case may be. Then only he would get acquitted, though the article of food was found adulterated. It would be then open to the prosecution to proceed against the manufacturers, dealer or distributor.(Para 9)
In this case, we cannot make any guess as to what would be the nature of the language used in the cash memo which was not filed in the absence of any specific recital therein. As seen in the recital of the Panchanama, there is no mention thereof as envisaged in Form VI-A. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to confirm the conviction and sentence minimum period of six months and is a mandatory after the Amendment Act, 1976, we cannot interfere with the sentence. ( Para 10)
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Though notice was served on the State, none appeared and pursuant to another notice given to the State counsel. she has circulated a letter stating that she did not get any instructions from the State and that, therefore, she cannot proceed with the matter. We have heard the counsel for the appellants.
3. The appellant was charged for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act ) for adulteration of mustard oil. The offence had taken place on 1.2.1984. Consequently, if the offence is proved, the sentence would be a mandatory character. He was acquitted by the trial court but on appeal, the High Court set aside the acquittal and the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, he was to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. The learned Magistrate considering Section 19(2) read with Rule 12A of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules ) found that since the appellant was armed with a warranty as envisaged thereunder, he had not committed the offence of adulteration of food. Accordingly, he acquitted the appellant. On a composite appeal filed in the High Court, the learned single Judge in Government Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1985 set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence. Thus this appeal by special leave.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants relying upon Section 19(2) and Rule 12-A of the Rules contended that on the appellant proving that he purchased article of food Form VI-A
(See Rule 12-A)
Form of Warranty
Invoice No ............. Place ............
From ..................... Date ............
To ............
Date of Nature and quality Batch No. Quantity Price Sale of article/Branch or Name, if an Code No.
1 2 3 4 5
I/We hereby certify that food/foods mentioned in this invoice is/are warranted to be of the nature and quality which it/these purports/purport to be.
Signature of manufacturer/
distributor/dealer
Name and Address of
Manufacturer/Packer
in case of packed article Licence No. ...........
(wherever applicable)
from a manufacturer or a dealer with a warranty as envisaged in Rule 12-A, he is absolved of the offence and the only remedy for the prosecution is to proceed against the manufacturer or dealer or distributor etc.
6. Section 19(2) of the Act reads thus:
"19.(2) 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-
(a) that he purchased the article of food-
(i) in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof, from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer;
(ii) in any other case, from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer,
with a written warrantee in the prescribed form; and
(b) That the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it.
7. Rule 12-A of the Rules reads thus :
"12-A. Warranty,-Every manufacturer, distributor or dealer selling an article of food to a vendor shall give either separately or in the bill, cash memo
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.