1. By this application under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), the applicants have challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalol in Criminal Case No.751 of 1993 vide judgment and order dated 7th July, 1999 and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, 4th Fast Track Court in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 1999 by judgment and order dated 18th June, 2004.

2. The facts giving rise to the present application are that the respondent No.2 – complainant, who was discharging duties as a Food Inspector, lodged a complaint to the effect that on 16th January, 1993 at 2.45 p.m. he had visited the shop of M/s. Bhavchand Waghumal Sindhi. The said firm was engaged in the business of edible oil, vegetable oil, by way of wholesale and retail. In the said shop, there were pressed tins reflecting Swati brand of M/s. Shri Umiya Oil Mill, Bhavnagar Road, Amreli, which were stocked for sale. It is further stated in the complaint that a panch – Shri Bhojraj Asudomal Aswani was called and in his presence, sample for analysis from the pressed tins of double filtered groundnut oil of Swati brand was obtained in accordance with the rules. Thereafter, necessary notice in Form No.VI by way of Registered A.D. post was sent to the accused No.8 – manufacturing firm (the applicant No.3 herein). As per the provisions of section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), one bottle of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Rajkot, for analysis and the remaining two bottles were sent to the Local Health Authority, Mehsana. By a report dated 1st March, 1993 issued by the Public Analyst, Rajkot, the sample was reported to be adulterated. After submitting necessary papers, sanction under section 20 of the Act was sought for. Accordingly, the complaint came to be lodged on 24th April, 1993 against, in all, eight persons including the applicants herein who were arraigned as accused No.6 to 8. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class found that the applicants were guilty of breach of the provisions of section 7 of the Act and as such, were liable to be punished and sentenced under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and sentenced the applicants No.1 and 2 to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further 15 days of imprisonment. Since the applicant No.3 herein is a Company, the applicants No.1 and 2 were directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in respect of applicant No.8 and in default, to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days.

3. Being aggrieved, the applicants preferred an appeal in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Mehsana, who vide the impugned judgment and order dated 18th June, 2004 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

4. Mr. A.D. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that before the trial court, the accused No.1 to 5 had taken up the defence under section 19(2) of the Act. However, the said accused did not prove warranty as envisaged under the said section, and as such, the trial court was not justified in accepting the defence of the said respondents. It was further submitted that the present applicants are sought to be implicated on the basis of the bill dated 14th January, 1993 (Exh.102) which had been produced by the accused No.1 to 5 before the Food Inspector, which bill had been exhibited merely on the basis of the evidence of the Food Inspector who had stated that the said bill had been produced before him by the accused No.1 to 5. However the contents of the said bill had not been proved by leading evidence as envisaged under section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the “Evidence Act”) and t