Judgment

RAY, C. J.:- These appeals by special leave turn on the interpretation of Section l9,(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. The appellant was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate. The High Court at Bombay reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act.

3. Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) states that if any person inter alia sells or distributes any article of food in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule made thereunder he shall. in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of Section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to six years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees.

4. The appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.

5. The appellant is a grocer. He sells compounded asafoetida. He purchased compounded asafoetida in sealed tins from the New India Hing Supplying Company, Bombay. In August, 1967, the Food Inspector purchased 300 grams of asafoetida for the purpose of analysis. The Food Inspector made three packets of 100 grams each and sent one of the packets to the Public Analyst at Poona. The report of the Public Analyst was that the alcoholic extract content in the asafoetida was 3.7;7 per cent whereas 5 per cent was the required quantity under the Act. It may be stated that A-04 in Appendix B to the Rules under the Act defines the standard of quality of asafoetida. It is stated that compounded asafoetida shall not contain less than 5 per cent alcoholic extract.

6. The appellant sold the goods in three different sizes of tins of 50 grams, 500 grams and 1500 grams. The Food Inspector purchased six tins of 50 grams each in the month of September, 1967. Out of these six tins the Food Inspector prepared three packages each package containing 2 tins. The Food Inspector also purchased 300 grams of compounded asafoetida breaking open the seal of a tin containing 500 grams. The Food Inspector made three packages out of the said 300 grams of asafoetida. The Food Inspector also purchased 300 grams of compounded asafoetida from a tin containing 1500 grams by breaking open the seal of one of the tins. The Food Inspector also made three packages out of the said 300 grams. The Food Inspector sent three packages one from each group to the Public Analyst at Poona. The report of the Public Analyst was that the alcoholic extract contents were 3.42, 3.3 and 3.33 per cent respectively.

7. The defence of the appellant was under Section 19 (2) of the Act.

8. Section 19 (2) is as follows :

"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 warranty 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."

9. The appellant contended that he was protected by Section 19 (2) (a) (i) because he purchased the compounded asafoetida from a duly licensed manufacturer and he sold it in the same state as he purchased it. The contention of the appellant is 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 in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer. The appellant contended that the words "with a written warranty in the prescribed form" attach only to Section 19 (2) (a) (ii) and not to Section 19 (2) (a) (i). He purchased th