Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered criminal appeals by special leave against a Bombay High Court judgment convicting a grocer for selling adulterated compounded asafoetida under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appellant, a grocer, sold compounded asafoetida in sealed tins purchased from New India Hing Supplying Company, Bombay, a licensed manufacturer. In August 1967 the Food Inspector purchased 300 grams of asafoetida and divided it into three packets of 100 grams each, sending one to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst reported alcoholic extract content of 3.77 per cent, below the required minimum of 5 per cent under A-04 in Appendix B to the Rules. In September 1967 the Food Inspector made further purchases: six tins of 50 grams each, divided into three packages of two tins each; 300 grams from a sealed 500-gram tin; and 300 grams from a sealed 1500-gram tin, each divided into three packages of 100 grams. One package from each group was sent for analysis, yielding alcoholic extract contents of 3.42, 3.3 and 3.33 per cent, respectively. Rule 22 prescribed that for compounded asafoetida the approximate quantity to be supplied for analysis is 200 grams, but the Food Inspector supplied only 100 grams per sample. The trial court acquitted the appellant. The Bombay High Court reversed and convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, sentencing one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000. The appellant contended he was protected by Section 19(2)(a)(i) because he purchased from a duly licensed manufacturer and sold in the same state, arguing written warranty in prescribed form applied only to clause (ii). He also contended the samples were not collected in compliance with Rule 22, rendering analysis invalid. The Supreme Court examined Section 19(2) and Rule 12A, which requires a trader selling to a vendor to deliver a warranty in Form VI-A, with a proviso allowing label or cash memo containing a warranty. The Court held that a written warranty is required in both cases under Section 19(2)(a)(i) and (ii); otherwise adulterated goods could be sold with impunity. It explained that the decision in Andhra Pradesh Grain & Seed Merchants Association v. Union of India did not support the appellant's contrary contention. On the sampling issue, the Court held that the quantities mentioned in Rule 22 are required for correct analysis; shortage in quantity is not permitted by statute and caused infraction and injustice. It found that the Public Analyst did not have the required quantities, and the High Court erred in convicting on analysis not in compliance with the statute. The Court noted with surprise that the High Court acquitted the manufacturer but convicted the grocer despite the defence that manufacturer did not give warranty. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, and appellant acquitted.
Headnote
A) Food Adulteration - Defense of Warranty - Written Warranty Required for Both Licensed and Unlicensed Vendors - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 19(2)(a)(i), Section 19(2)(a)(ii); Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 12A - The appellant contended that purchase from a duly licensed manufacturer under Section 19(2)(a)(i) did not require a written warranty in prescribed form. The Supreme Court held that Rule 12A mandates manufacturer's label or cash memo containing warranty, and warranty is required in both clauses of Section 19(2) to prevent adulterated goods being sold with impunity. The Court explained the decision in Andhra Pradesh Grain & Seed Merchants Association v. Union of India did not support the appellant. Held that no laxity should be permitted in these salutary provisions designed for health of the nation. B) Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Mandatory Quantity for Analysis - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 22 - Food Inspector took 100 grams of compounded asafoetida instead of prescribed 200 grams. The Public Analyst did not have the required quantity. The Supreme Court held that non-compliance with quantity caused infraction and injustice, and shortage in quantity for analysis is not permitted by statute. Consequently, the analysis based on short sample was invalid and conviction could not be sustained. Held appeals allowed and conviction set aside.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a vendor is protected under Section 19(2)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 without a written warranty when purchasing from a licensed manufacturer; whether non-compliance with Rule 22 quantity of sample is mandatory and entitles accused to acquittal.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted due to non-compliance with mandatory quantity under Rule 22, rendering analysis invalid.
Law Points
- Vendor's defense under Section 19(2) requires written warranty in prescribed form even when purchased from licensed manufacturer
- Rule 12A label or cash memo containing warranty satisfies requirement
- Rule 22 prescribed quantity for compounded asafoetida sample is mandatory
- non-compliance causes injustice and invalidates analysis
- no laxity permitted in food adulteration law.
