The main legal point established is that vendors must prove the purchase of the article of food with a warranty and that the article of food was properly stored and sold in the same state as purchased to claim protection under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

P.G. Agarwal, J.

1. All the above three revisions have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgment as the question of law raised in these revisions are identical.

2. Heard Mr. J M Choudhury, Mr. B B Narzary and Mr. S S Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. F H Laskar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. The facts of Criminal Revision No. 394/2000 are detailed to appreciate the question of law raised. The petitioners before us are the vendor and owner of grocery shop M/S Mahadev Store. The Food Inspector collected sample of 'besan' by purchasing 600 gm of 'besan' against payment and after issuance of notice in Form No. VI the sample was sent to the public analyst who opined that the sample is adulterated. The prosecution was launched against the vendor as well as the owner of the said grocery shop. The trial court convicted the vendor as well as the owner of the shop for selling adulterated 'besan', which as per the public analyst report contained powdered rice and powdered pea to the extent of 5% each. The report of the public analyst has not been challenged.

4. During trial, the accused persons took up the plea of warranty by stating, inter-alia, that they had purchased the 'besan' in question from M/s Ambika Trading Company, Ganeshguri, Guwahati vide cash memo Ext. A and this cash memo Ext. A was shown to the Food Inspector at the time of taking sample but no cognizance was taken by the Food Inspector. It was further stated that the 'besan' was kept for sale in the same condition in which it was purchased by them and as such the petitioners are not liable for conviction. The trial court as well as the appellate court rejected the plea of warranty and hence in the present revision the question that has come up for consideration is regarding the scope and ambit of the plea of warranty and the requirements of law which the vendor is required to establish for protection.

5. In all the three revisions before us, the only point raised is regarding the protection under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Section 19(2) reads as follows : -

"(2) A vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves -

(a) that he purchased the article of food --

(i) in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof, from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer,

(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."

6. Thus, the basic requirement as per Sub-clause (a) is that the vendor must establish that he had purchased the article of food from the manufacturer, distributor or dealer. In case a licence is prescribed for the sale of the article in question, it must be from the licenced manufacturer, distributor or dealer. In the present cases, all the articles of food were meant for resale and there was no question of purchasing from licensed manufacturer or distributor or dealer as no licence is prescribed for the sale thereof.

7. The next requirements as per Clause 2(a) is regarding written warranty in the prescribed form. In Criminal Revision 212/2000 the trial court refused to accept the cash memo as warranty by stating 'in the instant case the bill, if compared with the warranty form prescribed under Rule 12(a)(Form VI A), cannot be said to be a valid warranty. It is a settled law that mere production of the cash memo only at the time of cross-examination is not sufficient and the accused cannot be held to have discharged his burden under Section 19(2) of the Act'. We may have a look at the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, which reads as follows : -

"14. Manufacturers, distributors and dealers to give warranty - No (manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in) any a