IMPORTANT POINT
Manufacturer is liable for any sub-standard packed item manufactured by him.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The appellant was accused in a complaint filed under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”). He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months by Senior Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta. In appeal, the conviction and sentence of the appellant was upheld by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Calcutta vide judgment dated 26.06.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 106/2007. The order was challenged before the High Court at Calcutta by filing a revision petition bearing C.R.R. No. 64/2014 which was dismissed on 08.06.2016. The judgment has been impugned before this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant raised a legal argument and submitted that the appellant is merely a vendor who purchased food item pan masala, namely, ‘Pan Parag’ from M/s Kothari Pouches Limited, the manufacturer, in sealed packaged condition and sold it to its customers. In terms of Section 14 of the Act, the manufacturer had given warranty about the nature and quality of the product sold by the petitioners. It was in the form of a bill having a specific note with reference to the warranty. The protection is available to the appellant in terms of Section 19(2) of the Act which provides for defences which may be available in prosecutions under the Act. The Courts below failed to consider the aforesaid legal argument and upheld the conviction.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is a case in which samples of pan masala namely ‘Pan Parag’ were collected from the business premises of Chanda Aggarwal, buyer of pan masala from the appellant. Initially complaint was filed against Chanda Aggarwal and Binod Agarwal. However, on an application filed by them, the appellant was impleaded as an accused as they had produced the bill showing purchase from the appellant. Only the appellant was convicted in the said matter as Chanda Aggarwal and Binod Agarwal were given benefit of protection under Section 19(2) of the Act. The samples of seized pan masala were tested twice, once by the Public Analyst for Calcutta Municipal Corporation and then by Central Food Laboratory at CFTRI, Mysore on the application of the appellant. Both times the sample did not conform to the standards laid down for ‘Pan Masala’ under the Act and Rules framed thereof and the tests failed. Hence, the offence was clearly established.

4. It was further submitted that the appellant cannot be allowed to go scot-free only on technical grounds. A warranty has to be given by the manufacturer or distributor in the prescribed form. In the case in hand, there is no such warranty produced by the appellant. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the Courts below. Another argument raised is that the appellant cannot be said to be a vendor. No case for interference is made out.

5. In response to the arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel and another v. State of Maharashtra State AIR 1966 Supreme Court 128 to submit that though the word “Vendor” has not been defined in the Act, however, it has been defined to mean a person who has sold the article of food, which is alleged to be adulterated.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.

7. To appreciate the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, reference to provisions of Sections 14 and 19 of the Act would be relevant. The same reads as under:-

“14. Manufacturers, distributors and dealers to give warranty - No manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in, any article of food shall sell such article to any vendor unless he also gives a warranty in writing in the p