Case Note & Summary
The appellant was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated pan masala. The sample was collected from the business premises of Chanda Aggarwal, who had purchased the pan masala from the appellant. The appellant was impleaded as an accused on the application of the original accused. The trial court convicted the appellant, and the conviction was upheld by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Calcutta on 26.06.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.106/2007. The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the revision petition C.R.R. No.64/2014 on 08.06.2016. The appellant argued that he was merely a vendor who purchased the pan masala 'Pan Parag' from the manufacturer M/s Kothari Pouches Limited in sealed packaged condition and sold it to customers. The manufacturer had given a warranty about the nature and quality of the product in the bill, and the appellant was entitled to the defense under Section 19(2) of the Act. The respondent submitted that the sample was collected from the buyer Chanda Aggarwal, and the appellant was impleaded later. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had made out the defense under Section 19(2) by showing that he sold the article in the same sealed condition as purchased from the manufacturer who had given a warranty. The prosecution failed to rebut this defense. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Food Adulteration - Vendor's Defense - Section 19(2) read with Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - The appellant, a vendor, sold pan masala 'Pan Parag' in sealed packaged condition purchased from the manufacturer M/s Kothari Pouches Limited, who had given a warranty about the nature and quality of the product in the bill. The appellant raised the defense under Section 19(2) of the Act, which provides that a vendor who sells any article of food in a sealed container having a warranty from the manufacturer shall not be liable for prosecution if he proves that the article was sold in the same state as purchased. The courts below failed to consider this legal argument and upheld the conviction. Held that the appellant is entitled to acquittal as the defense under Section 19(2) was made out and not rebutted by the prosecution. (Paras 1-3) B) Criminal Law - Food Adulteration - Manufacturer's Warranty - Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - The manufacturer M/s Kothari Pouches Limited gave a warranty in the form of a bill with a specific note regarding the nature and quality of the product 'Pan Parag'. The appellant, being a vendor, relied on this warranty to claim protection under Section 19(2). The court noted that the warranty was not disputed by the prosecution. Held that the existence of a valid warranty from the manufacturer is a complete defense for the vendor under Section 19(2) of the Act. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a vendor who sells a food item in sealed packaged condition with a warranty from the manufacturer is entitled to the defense under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and whether the courts below erred in not considering this defense.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Law Points
- Vendor's defense under Section 19(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Manufacturer's warranty under Section 14 of the Act
- Burden of proof on prosecution to negate statutory defense
