( 1 ) THIS Revision Application is preferred by the petitioner challenging two decisions, one holding the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) r/w. Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 11th March. 1998 and another decision dated 13th october. 2000 given by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad city, dismissing the Criminal Appeal of the petitioner and confirming the order of conviction dated llth March. 1998 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Court No. 6. Ahmedabad. in Criminal Case no. 94/1989.

( 2 ) MR. PARDIWALA learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K. B. Anandjiwala for the petitioner has taken me through all the relevant facts including the method adopted by CFL in recording findings as to use of equipment in analysing the sample i. e. use of microscope, though there is no such provision in the relevant Rules, that may probably lead this Court to any other or different approach. The first legal submission made before this Court by mr. Pardiwala is that both the lower Courts have failed to consider the plea of the petitioner accused as far as Section 19 (2) of the Act is Concerned. Section 19 (2) of the Act reads as under:" (A) vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to sell of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves (1) in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof, from a duly licenced manufacturer, distributor or dealer, (2) in any other case from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer (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. "

( 3 ) IT is not a matter of dispute which has been observed in para: 19 of the judgment and order of the learned trial court that during the course of recording evidence one bill was produced by the petitioner-accused to show that he had bought the Turmeric Powder from one shree Laxmi Bhandar having kabutar brand Agmark Masala Manufacturer and the complainant Food Inspector had drawn the sample of turmeric powder from that bulk and that sample was sent to public analyst for the purpose of analysis. The production of this document was not objected as record to its admissibility and. therefore, the bill was accepted as a piece of evidence and the same was given exh. 50. This document exh. 50 was considered by the learned trial Court but it is observed that this bill does not reflect any warranty and in absence of specific warranty, the petitioner accused cannot escape from his individual liability of selling an adulterated article. The defence available to the petitioner-accused under section 19 (2) of the Act would not be available in such contingency. It is argued by Mr. Pardiwala that as far as the contention of the petitioner-accused with regard to Section 19 (2) of the Act is concerned the law is well settled. Section 14 of the Act with its proviso clinches the issue. Looking to, the text of the proviso to Section 14, a bill, cash memo or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by manufacturer or distributor or dealer, in such article to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be a warranty given by the said manufacturer, distributor or dealer under this Section and, therefore, a deeming effect has been given by this proviso and each and every bill should be accepted as a warranty given by the manufacturer distributor or dealer. When the bill has been duly proved in evidence and has been exhibited and marked exh. 50 without there being any objection raised by the prosecution, this defence of the petitioner-accused ought to have been accepted. It is true that there is no evidence on record that the turmeric powder purchased from the manufacturer was preserved in the same condition and sold as it was bought from the manufacturer or dealer. This point according to Mr. Pardiwala is also no