The defence of bona fide purchasers under Section 19 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is available only if the accused proves that they purchased the adulterated food from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor, or dealer with a written warranty and that the food was properly stored and sold in the same state as purchased.

JUDGMENT

Rai Chattopadhya, J. - The points for determination in this revision are whether alleged offence under Section 16 (1. (a. (i. read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, against the accused persons/revisionists are proved beyond all reasonable doubts, whether the petitioners were actually the bona fide end user of the contaminated product, whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are right and proper to pronounce them as convicts by their respective judgments, whether there has been latches in the procedure undertaken by the authorities under the provisions of the said Act and lastly, whether the sentence earlier granted by the court may be modified in a manner as prayed for by the petitioners.

2. The case starts under Sections 16 (1. (a. (i. and Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, it would be beneficial to quote both the afore stated provisions which are as below:-

'16. Penalties- (1. Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1A. if any person-

(a. whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, imports into India or manufactures for sales or stores, sells or distributes any article of food-

(i. which is adulterated within the meaning of sub-clause (m. of clause (ia. of section 2 or misbranded within the meaning of clause (ix. of that section or the sale of which is prohibited under any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder or by an order of the Food (Health. Authority;'

'7. Prohibitions of manufacture, sale, etc., of certain articles of food.-No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute-

(i. any adulterated food;

(ii. any misbranded food;

(iii. any article of food for the sale of which a licence is prescribed, except in accordance with the conditions of the licence;

(iv. any article of food the sale of which is for the time being prohibited by the Food (Health. Authority [in the interest of public health;]

(v. any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder; [or]

[(vi. any adulterant.]

[Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to store any adulterated food or misbranded food or any article of food referred to in clause (iii. or clause (iv. or clause (v. if he stores such food for the manufacture therefrom of any article of food for sale.]'

3. The petitioners have been found to be guilty by the Trial Court as well as the District and Sessions Judge in an appeal, in which it affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the Ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge in appeal No. 26 of 2014 dated 3rd October 2015 is under challenge in this revision.

4. The petitioners have challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of both the judgments as stated above on the ground that the factual circumstances which emerged before the Trial Court through the evidence on record have not been considered in its proper prospective by both the courts. Their grievance is also regarding non-consideration of the protections available to them under the provision of the afore stated enactment. It is further submitted that petitioners are only the bona fide purchasers who have purchased the product against proper documents and not the manufacturers or distributors or dealers as regards the contaminated food article. That the statutory protection granted under Section 19 (2. of the said Act shall be available to them in this trial. It is stated that as the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have failed to consider this aspect of the matter and passed the judgment, the same is liable to be set aside being dehors the settled provision of law.

5. State has raised strong objection to such contention and prayer of the petitioners. It has heavily relied on the evidence on record to submit that firstly the adulterated and contaminated character of the food article seized fro