1. Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam.

2. The legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 30.7.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup in Criminal Appeal No. 56/2007, whereby the petitioner was convicted under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default further simple imprisonment for another 1 month, has been challenged in this revision petition.

3. The revision petitioner was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (TFA Act) and sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 with default stipulation. The revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner by the impugned judgment. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner has preferred the instant appeal.

4. Mr. A.M. Bora, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a petty grocer. He purchased the Arhar dal, of which, sample was taken by the Food Inspector, from one M/s. New Star Corporation with proper warranty and, therefore, he was protected under section 19(2) of the PFA Act. He produced the warranty before the Food Inspector and also proved during trial. However, the learned trial court erroneously rejected the plea of the accused. The further contention of the learned senior counsel is that the mandatory provisions of section 13(2) of the PFA Act was not complied with, which had the effect of vitiating the entire proceeding and, therefore, the accused/petitioner ought not to have been convicted in the instant case.

5. Learned Addl. P.P., appearing for the state submits that the defence could not produce adequate evidence to get the benefit of section 19(2) of the PFA Act and, therefore, the findings of the learned trial court while rejecting the case of the defence with regard to protection under section 19(2) of the PFA Act cannot be faulted.

6. From the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the materials available on record, following two questions fall for consideration in this revision petition.

(i) Whether the accused was entitled to the benefit of section 19(2) of the PFA Act?

(ii) Whether the trial stood vitiated for non-compliance of section 13(2) of the PFA Act?

Point No. 1

7. PW-1 the Food Inspector Sri Bhabendra Nath Pathak stated in his evidence that he took sample from an open bag containing approximately 70 kgs. of Arhar dal. According to him, the accused told that he purchased the said dal from M/s. New Star Corporation with cash memo dated 10.6.2004 containing warranty. The said cash memo which has been proved as Exhibit-3 and also Exhibit-A by the defence, transpires that a bag containing 50 kg. of dal was purchased vide the said cash memo. The petitioner produced another cash memo from the same dealer and proved as Exhibit-B. During cross-examination, the Food Inspector admitted that the cash memo was produced before him at the time of taking sample which demonstrated that 50 kgs. of such Arhar dal was purchased by the said cash memo, Exhibit-3, (Exhibit-A). He also stated in his cross-examination that he did not weigh the bag containing dal and only on assumption he stated that it was approximately 70 kgs.

8. PW-2 also stated in the same line that the accused had produced the cash memo showing purchase of 50 kgs. of Arhar dal from M/s. New Star Corporation. The accused examining himself as DW-1 proved the said cash memo/warranty as Exhibit-A and other cash memo as Exhibit-B. During cross-examination of the petitioner by the accused No. 2, who allegedly issued the Exhibit-3 as well as the Exhibit