First the accused vendor entitled to succeed in his plea of warranty under section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ notwithstanding the fact that he has not proved that the manufacturer from whom he purchased the article of food is duly licensed to sell the article of food which was sold to him? This is the only question canvassed before me in this revision against the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence.

2. On facts, there appears to be no serious dispute. The petitioner is the 1st accused. He allegedly sold adulterated coriander powder to the Food Inspector at 12.30 P.M. on 13-5-1990. Even at the time of sale to the Food Inspector he took up a plea that he had purchased the article in sealed packets from a manufacturer who had issued to him the requisite warranty as insisted by section 19 of the P.F.A. Act. The courts below do not appear to have entered any finding of fact against the assertions of the vendor-petitioner.

3. But, the courts below took note of the fact that evidence was lacking on the crucial aspect that the manufacturer who allegedly sold the article to the vendor under a written warranty was duly licenced to manufacture and distribute coriander powder. Both the manufacturer and the vendor were prosecuted together. The averments in the complaint show clearly that there is an allegation/charge against the 2nd accused manufacturer that he was not duly licenced and has therefore committed violation of Rule 50 of the P.F.A. Rules.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in his plea under section 19 of the P.F.A. Act. According to him, it is not necessary that the vendor must prove that the article was purchased by him from a duly licenced manufacturer. The burden on the accused does not saddle him with the responsibility of going in search of the manufacturer to ascertain whether he is duly licenced. He therefore deserves to be acquitted, it is urged.

5. This contention cannot obviously stand. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is a piece of legislation intended to afford social protection against the un-scrupulous sale of adulterated articles of food. It endeavours to protect the basic right of an individual in the polity that he must be able to get un-adulterated articles for his use.

6. The P.F.A. Act does take note of the plight of innocent vendors who may have no role to play in the actual adulteration of the articles. To them, protection is offered under section 19(2) of the P.F.A. Act. In order to entitle a vendor to the protection under section 19(2) of the Act, it is obligatory that the must prove certain vital ingredients. He must first of all prove that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer from whom he purchased the article was duly licenced to manufacture, distribute and deal with such products. He must further prove that a written warranty in the prescribed form had been issued to him. It is also his burden to prove that he had, while the article was in his possession, properly stored the article and that he had sold the same in the same state as he purchased it.

7. If only the vendor satisfies the above requirements, can he claim the protection under section 19(2) of he P.F.A. Act. The business of vending articles of food is certainly an onerous and hazardous one. Such vendors can put the health of the community in jeopardy. Where he is found to sell adulterated articles it is no defence for him to contend that he did not adulterate the same. What is punishable is not merely adulteration of articles of food but equally the sale of adulterated articles of food. Even then the law in its compassion provides that such a vendor of adulterated article can also claim exculpation provided he satisfies the mandatory requirements of section 19(2) of h P.F.A. Act.

8. It is contended that the vendor is poor and helpless. How is he to prove that the manufacturer who is situated