Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by certificate against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had set aside the acquittal of M/s. Baburally Sardar and its partner Abdul Razzak and convicted them under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The dispute arose when a Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta visited the appellants' shop on June 1, 1960 and took samples of Comela Brand condensed milk. The Public Analyst found the milk fat content to be 3.4%, far below the prescribed minimum of 9% for condensed milk as specified in Appendix B A.11.07 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The appellants were prosecuted and raised a defence under Section 19(2) of the Act, claiming that the label on the tins constituted a written warranty. The trial Magistrate accepted the defence and acquitted them, but the High Court on appeal by the State convicted the appellants, holding that the label did not amount to a warranty. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision. The core legal issue was whether the description on the label, namely 'Full cream sweetened condensed milk made on formula of Holland product' and 'scientifically preserved pure and produced from healthy cow's milk', satisfied the warranty requirement under Section 19(2) and the proviso to Rule 12-A. The court held that the defence under Section 19(2) required the vendor to prove that the article purchased was the same in nature, substance and quality as demanded by the purchaser and that a written warranty in the prescribed form had been obtained. Since the milk was below standard, it could not be regarded as the same in nature, substance and quality as demanded. Moreover, no warranty in the prescribed form under Rule 12-A was obtained. The proviso to Rule 12-A allowed a label to serve as a warranty only if it certified that the food was the same in nature, substance and quality as demanded, but the label here merely described the product and did not contain such certification. The label was also not in the form prescribed by Rule 42-B(b) for sweetened condensed milk, which required a statement of the equivalent litres of milk. The court further observed that the term 'full cream' was undefined and, without knowing the quantity of full cream condensed in each tin, it was impossible to calculate milk solids and fat. The cash memos also carried no warranty. The court held that when a vendor accepts tins purported to be condensed milk bearing such a label, he cannot claim that he had no reason to believe that the food was not of the prescribed nature, substance and quality. Merely selling the tins in the same state as purchased did not absolve the appellants. In a concurring judgment, Bachawat J emphasised that the defence under Section 19(2) failed because the appellants did not prove purchase with a written warranty in the prescribed form; the label gave a description but not a warranty certifying sameness. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.
Headnote
A) Food Adulteration - Defence of Vendor - Conditions under Section 19(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Vendor must prove purchase as same nature, substance and quality as demanded, with written warranty in prescribed form, no reason to believe otherwise, and sold in same state - The condensed milk sample had fat content 3.4% below prescribed 9%, so it could not be regarded as same in nature, substance and quality as demanded by purchaser, and no warranty in prescribed form was obtained, thus Section 19(2)(i) not satisfied (Page 819 B-C). B) Food Adulteration - Warranty on Label - Proviso to Rule 12-A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Label must contain warranty certifying food same in nature, substance and quality as demanded - The label described contents as pure and produced from healthy cow's milk but did not certify sameness; not in form prescribed under Rule 42-B(b) for sweetened condensed milk; could not ascertain milk solids and fat from quantity, so no warranty (Page 819 D-820 D). C) Food Adulteration - Meaning of 'Full Cream' - Rule 42-B(b) and Appendix B A.11.07 - 'Full cream' not defined; without quantity of full cream condensed per tin impossible to calculate milk solids and fat - Label of little assistance to vendor (Page 820 D-E). D) Food Adulteration - Vendor's Reasonable Belief - Section 19(2)(ii) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Vendor accepting tins purported to be condensed milk with such label cannot claim no reason to believe not of prescribed quality; selling in same state not sufficient (Page 820 F). E) Food Adulteration - Defence under Section 19(2) and Rule 12-A/Form VI-A - Written Warranty Requirement - Per Bachawat J, defence fails absent written warranty in prescribed form; label is description not warranty; appellants failed to establish defence under Section 19(2) read with Rule 12-A and Form VI-A (Page 821 A-B).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the label on tins of condensed milk described as 'Full cream sweetened condensed milk' and 'scientifically preserved pure and produced from healthy cow's milk' amounts to a warranty under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the proviso to Rule 12-A; and whether the defence under Section 19(2) was available to the vendor.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The defence under Section 19(2) was not available because the milk was below prescribed standard and no warranty in prescribed form was obtained. The label and cash memo did not constitute warranty.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Vendor defence under s.19(2) requires purchase as same in nature
- substance and quality as demanded and with written warranty in prescribed form
- label on container must certify same nature
- substance and quality
- full cream description without quantities insufficient
- cash memo without warranty not enough
- storage of adulterated food is offence under s.16(1)(a)(i) read with s.7(1)
