Supreme Court Acquits Vendor in Food Adulteration Case — Warranty Defence Under Section 19(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Accepted. Vendor Who Sold Sealed Packaged Pan Masala from Manufacturer with Warranty Is Entitled to Statutory Defence Under Section 19(2) Read with Section 14 of the Act.

Admin

2026-05-18 17:53:52

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant was accused in a complaint filed under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act). He was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months by the Senior Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta. In appeal, the conviction and sentence were upheld by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Calcutta vide judgment dated 26.06.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.106/2007. The order was challenged before the High Court at Calcutta by filing a revision petition bearing C.R.R. No.64/2014 which was dismissed on 08.06.2016. The judgment has been impugned before the Supreme Court. The appellant, a vendor, purchased food item pan masala, namely 'Pan Parag' from M/s Kothari Pouches Limited, the manufacturer, in sealed packaged condition and sold it to its customers. The manufacturer had given a warranty about the nature and quality of the product in the form of a bill having a specific note with reference to the warranty. The appellant raised a legal argument that he is entitled to the protection under Section 19(2) of the Act which provides for defences available in prosecutions under the Act. The courts below failed to consider this argument. The respondent submitted that samples were collected from the business premises of Chanda Aggarwal, buyer of pan masala from the appellant. Initially complaint was filed against Chanda Aggarwal and Binod Agarwal, but on their application, the appellant was impleaded as an accused. The Supreme Court considered the legal argument and held that the appellant, being a vendor who sold the product in sealed packaged condition with a warranty from the manufacturer, was entitled to the defence under Section 19(2) of the Act. The courts below had not considered this defence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.

Headnote

A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Warranty Defence - Section 19(2) read with Section 14 - Vendor Protection - The appellant, a vendor of pan masala 'Pan Parag' in sealed packaged condition, purchased from the manufacturer M/s Kothari Pouches Limited with a warranty bill, was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to the defence under Section 19(2) of the Act as he had sold the product in the same sealed condition and had a warranty from the manufacturer. The courts below failed to consider this legal argument. The conviction and sentence were set aside. (Paras 1-4)

B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Burden of Proof - Section 19(2) - Statutory Defence - The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the vendor did not satisfy the conditions of Section 19(2). In the absence of such proof, the vendor is entitled to acquittal. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant had produced the warranty bill, and the prosecution did not rebut the same. (Paras 2-4)

Issue of Consideration

Whether a vendor who sells a food item in sealed packaged condition, purchased from a manufacturer with a warranty as to quality, is entitled to the defence under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and whether the courts below erred in not considering this defence.

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

Warranty defence under Section 19(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
1954
Vendor protection
Burden of proof on prosecution
Statutory defence available to seller of sealed packaged goods

Case Details

2023 LawText (SC) (4) 108

Criminal Appeal No. 982/2023

2023-04-26

Rajesh Bindal

M/s SRI MAHAVIR AGENCY & ANR. .

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal by invoking warranty defence under Section 19(2) of the Act

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted for selling adulterated pan masala; he claimed he sold sealed packaged product with manufacturer's warranty

Previous Decisions

Conviction by Senior Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta; upheld by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Calcutta on 26.06.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.106/2007; revision dismissed by High Court at Calcutta on 08.06.2016 in C.R.R. No.64/2014

Issues

Whether the appellant, a vendor of sealed packaged pan masala with a warranty from the manufacturer, is entitled to the defence under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that he is merely a vendor who purchased the food item in sealed packaged condition from the manufacturer with a warranty under Section 14 of the Act, and is entitled to protection under Section 19(2) of the Act. Respondent submitted that samples were collected from the buyer Chanda Aggarwal, and the appellant was impleaded as an accused on application of the original accused.

Ratio Decidendi

A vendor who sells a food item in sealed packaged condition, purchased from a manufacturer with a warranty as to quality under Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is entitled to the defence under Section 19(2) of the Act. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the vendor did not satisfy the conditions of Section 19(2). In the absence of such proof, the vendor is entitled to acquittal.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant was accused in a complaint filed under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Learned counsel for the appellant raised a legal argument and submitted that the appellant is merely a vendor who purchased food item pan masala, namely, ‘Pan Parag’ from M/s Kothari Pouches Limited, the manufacturer, in sealed packaged condition and sold it to its customers. In terms of Section 14 of the Act, the manufacturer had given warranty about the nature and quality of the product sold by the petitioners. The protection is available to the appellant in terms of Section 19(2) of the Act which provides for defences which may be available in prosecutions under the Act.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the Senior Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Calcutta on 26.06.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.106/2007. The revision petition before the High Court at Calcutta (C.R.R. No.64/2014) was dismissed on 08.06.2016. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 982/2023.