Summary
A dealer who bought sealed packets of 'Pan Parag' pan masala from the manufacturer and sold them on was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 after samples drawn from his buyer's premises failed analysis; his buyers were acquitted under Section 19(2) on the strength of his bill. The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent conviction, holding that the manufacturer's invoice certifying that the goods were warranted to be of the nature and quality they purported to be satisfied Section 14, Rule 12A and Form VIA, that the appellant, having sold the article, was a 'vendor' as understood in Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel, and that he was therefore entitled to the defence under Section 19(2)(a)(ii).
Issues
- Whether a seller of packaged food who purchased it from the manufacturer under an invoice containing a certification of nature and quality holds a written warranty in the prescribed form so as to attract the defence under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
- Whether such an intermediate seller is a 'vendor' entitled to that defence.
Provisions considered
- Section 14 with proviso, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954A manufacturer, distributor or dealer must give the vendor a written warranty of nature and quality, and a bill, cash memo or invoice is deemed to be such a warranty; the manufacturer's invoice here carried the certification required by law. (¶¶ 8, 9, 11, 12)
- Rule 12A and Form VIA, Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955Prescribe that the warranty may be given separately or in the bill, cash memo or label in the text of Form VIA; the invoice certification conformed to it. (¶¶ 8, 10, 11, 12)
- Section 19(2)(a)(ii), Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954A vendor who proves purchase from a manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form is not deemed to have committed the offence; the appellant had this defence. (¶¶ 13, 15)
- Section 20A, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954Permits impleadment of the manufacturer, distributor or dealer in a pending complaint; no such step was shown to have been taken against the manufacturer. (¶ 16)
Held
- The manufacturer's invoice, which certified that the goods were warranted to be of the nature and quality they purported to be, was a warranty in terms of Section 14 read with Rule 12A and Form VIA, and the appellant who sold the sealed packets purchased under it was protected by Section 19(2)(a)(ii). (¶¶ 12, 13, 15)
- Though 'vendor' is undefined in the Act, the Constitution Bench in Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel held it means the person who sold the article of food alleged to be adulterated; the appellant, having sold the pan masala purchased from the manufacturer, was such a vendor. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment dated 08.06.2016 and the conviction and sentence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act set aside; bail bonds discharged.