A vendor is not liable for selling adulterated food if they can prove that they purchased the food with a written warranty from the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer, and that they kept and sold the food in the same condition as they received it.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against conviction under Section 7 (i)/16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The appel- lant Beharilal was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rupees 1000 while the appeflant Girdharilal was sentenced to rigorous impri- sonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case is as follows : On November 29, 1963 the Food Inspector. Calcutta Corporation, visited the shop of Beharilal Omprakash at 149 Cotton Street, Calcutta. The appellant Giridharilal was then present. He took sample from one tin ol lanka powder in presence of witnesses after observing the rules. He also took charge of the tin and then went to the godown of the firm at 37 Cotton Street across the street. There also he found 41 tins of lanka powder and took sample from one such tin. All formalities were complied with and one sample of each seizure was handed over to the appellants. He also seized all the 42 tins of lanka powder under two lists and thereafter sent the samples to the Public Analyst for analysis. The public analyst found the samples to be highly adulterated and thereafter with sanction from the Health Officer they were charged with offences under the Food Adulteration Act and convicted.

( 3 ) THE defence was a plea of innocence. They pleaded that the samples were not taken according to law and that Beharilal was not a partner of the firm. They also pleaded warranty from the supplier at Bombay.

( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate overruled the objections and held on the evidence of D. W. 6, a partner of the Bombay firm Madhab-das Raghvji and Co. , that there was no warranty in respect of the tins from which samples were taken.

( 5 ) MR. Dutta the learned Advocate for the appellants, pleaded the defence under Section 19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Their contention is that they purchased mirchi in sealed tins from the firm Mangaldas Raghavji and Co. , of Bombay and the tins were sent from time to time by railway with usual warranty. They contend that not only were the contents ol mirchi powder (sic) but they stocked and sold the articles in the same condition they purchased from the Bombay firm. They had the necessary warranty of purity from tie Bombay firm and as such they were not liable if the contents were adulterated. The relevant portion of Section 19 (2) as follows:"a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article ol food if he proves-- (a) that he purchased the articles of food-- (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. " Sub-section (3) of Section 19 provides that-- "any person by whom a warranty as is referred to in Section 14 is alleged to have been given shall be entitled to appear at the hearing and give evidence. "the appellants, rherefore, shall not be deemed to nave committed an offence pertaining to the mirchi powder, if they can prove that they purchased the articles from Mangaldas Raghavji and Co. , a firm at Bombay, with a written warranty in prescribed form and that the articles while in his possession were properly stored and that he sold it in the same State as he purchased it.

( 6 ) THE learned Magistrate rejected the plea on the finding that the plea was taken at a very late stage and is after-thought. He accepted the denial by a partner of the firm at Bombay that the rubber stamp war-, ranty was manufactured and the tins containing the powder were changed while under attachment, though, he accepted the appellants' story of purchase from time to time of a large number of tins from the same firm. The learned Magistrate finally held that the lanka powder seized did not come from the Bombay firm. There is no dispute that the ap