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 war