Holding

A vendor is absolved from liability under Section 19(2) only if he produces a warranty in the prescribed Form VI‑A that specifically certifies the nature and quality of the article; a generic cash memo does not meet this requirement.

Summary

Murlidhar Shyamlal, a vendor, was charged under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated mustard oil. The trial court acquitted him, but the Assam High Court convicted him, relying on the absence of a proper warranty. The vendor argued that Section 19(2) of the Act and Rule 12‑A of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1956, absolve a vendor who can produce a written warranty in Form VI‑A stating that the article sold is of the same nature and quality as purchased. The Supreme Court held that the warranty must contain a specific recital as required by Form VI‑A; a mere cash memo without such language does not satisfy the statutory requirement. Consequently, the vendor could not escape liability, and the conviction and mandatory six‑month sentence were upheld.

Issues considered

Whether a vendor who produces a cash memo, but not a specific warranty in Form VI‑A, can invoke Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to escape liability for selling adulterated food.
Whether the language of the cash memo must expressly state that the article is of the same nature and quality as purchased to satisfy Rule 12‑A.

Legislation cited

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954s. 16, s. 19(2), s. 7

Subjects

Food adulterationVendor liabilityWarranty requirementSection 19(2)Rule 12-AForm VI-AMandatory sentencingMustard oil

Judgment

••
\
!

A
. ... ,
M/S. MURLIDHAR SHYAMLAL AND ANR .
v.
STATE OF ASSAM

JANUARY 18, 19%

[K. l{AMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Food Adulteration Act, 1954/Food Adulteration Rules, 195'i :

S. 7, 19(2)/Rule 12-A-Article of food stored for sale-Found adul-
terate~Liability for prosecution-Vendor could be absolved from the liability C
if he could prove that he purchased the article offood with a written wa1ranty
in Fonn VI-A in tenns of kule 12-A that the article of food sold was in the
same nature and quality of the article supplied-Cash Memo given by
dealer-To be constnted in the language employed therein and benefit of
doubt given.
D
K Ranganatha Reddiar v. The State of Kera/a, (1969] 2 SCC 457 at
459, relied on.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICT!ON : Criminal Appeal No.
127 of 1996.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.6.92 of the Assam High
Court in Govt. Cr!. A. No. 62 of 1985.

M.L. Lahoty, Ms. Sangita Pandey, P.S. Jha and Pawan Sharma for
~~~ F
Ms. Manjula Gupta for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.
G
' -< Though notice was served on the State, non appeared and pursuant
to another notice given to the State counsel, she has circulated a letter
stating that she did not get any instructions from the State and that,
therefore, she cannot proceed with the matter. We have heard the Counsel
for the appellants. H
763
(
I
'
'
764 SUPREM I'. COUR TREPORTS (1996] 1 S.C.R.

A The appellant was charged for an offence under Section 7 read with
Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short,
'the Act') for adulteration of mustard oil. The offence had taken place on
1.2.1984. Cons~quently, if the offence is proved, the sentence would be of
mandatory character. He wao acquitted by the trial court but on appeal,
the High Court set aside the acquittal and the appellants were convicted
B
and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of six months and also
to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default, he was to undergo further
imprisonment for a period of one month. Both sentences were directed to
run concurrently.

C The learned Magistrate consideriog Section 19(2) read with Rule
12A of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1956 (for short, 'the Rules') found
that since the appellant was armed with a warranty as envisaged there-
under, he had not committed the offence of adulteration of food. Accord-
ingly, he acquitted the appellant. On a composite appeal filed in the High
Court, the learned single Judge in Government Criminal Appeal No. 62 o~
D 1985 set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellants for the aforesaid
offence. Thus this appeal by special leave.

Learned counsel for the appellants relyiog upon Section 19(2) and
Rule 12-A of the Rules contended that on the appellant proving that he
E purchased article of food from a manufacturer or a dealer with a warranty
as envisaged in Rule 12-A, he is absolved of the offence and the only
remedy for the prosecution is to proceed against the manufacturer or
dealer or distributor etc.

Section 19(2) of the Act reads thus :
F
"19.(2) A vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence
pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of
food if he proves-

(a) that he purchased the article of food -
G
(i) in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale
thereof, from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor
or dealer;

(ii) i!1 any other case, from any manufacturer, distributor
H or dealer,
\
MURLIDHAR SHYAMLAL v. STATE 765

with a written warrantee in the prescribed from; and A

(b) That the article of food while in his possession was properly
stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased
it.

Rule 12-A of the Rules reads thus : B

• "12-A. Wairanty. - Every manufacturer, distributor or dealer selling
an article of food to a vendor shall give either separately or in the
bill, cash memo or label, a warranty in Form VI-A"

The warranty shall be in the prescribed from VI-A which reads thus: c

FORM VI-A
(See Rule 12-A)
Form of Warranty D
Invoice No ................ . Place ............... .
From ............... . Date ................. .
To .................... .

Date Nature and quality E
Batch No. or
of of article/Branch Quantity Price
Code No.
Sale Name, if any
1 2 3 4 5

I/We hereby certify that food/foods mentioned in this invoice
is/are warranted to be of the nature and quality which it/these
F
purports/purport to be.

Signature of manufacturer/
distributor/dealer
G
Name and Address of
Manufacturer/Packer
• in case of packed article

Licence No .............. .
(wherever applicable) H
(
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A Thus it would be clear that with a view to absolve the appellant of
the liability for being prosecuted, the vendor of the article of the food to
the Food Inspector, has to prove that he purchased the article of food with
a written warranty in the prescribed form VI-A in terms of Rule 12-A. It
is contended that the distributor had come into the witness bcix and stated
that the article was of the same quality as was sold by him. The learned
B
has relied upon the memo of the sample taken by the Food Inspector which
contains thus :

"450 gms of Mustard oil from a packed tin containing the same
weighing 16 kg. nett with a printed label on it "New Rice & Oil
c Mill, Raha, pure mustard oil (Biswanath Brand) nett wt. 16 Kg."
stored for sale in the said premise' "

It would only indicate that the packed tin contammg the same
weighing 16 Kg. (nett) with a printed label on it "New Rice & Oil Mill,
D Raha, pure mustard oil (Biswanath Brand) nett wt. 16 Kg." stored for sale
in the said premises. From this, it is contended that the appellant had the
warranty and that, therefore, by operation of Section 19(2) read with Rule
12-A, the appellant is .absolved of his liability to be prosecuted for sale of
the adulterated article of food. We are afraid that we cannot accept the
contention. In view of the above warranty as envisaged under Form VI-A,
E there must be specific mention therein by the dealer or distributor or
manufacturer, that the article of food sole was in the same nature and
quality of the article of food, as the case may be. Then only he would get
acquitted, though the article of food was found adulterated. It would be
then open to the prosecution to proceed against the manufacturers, dealer
F or distributor.

It is then contended that cash memo contains such a recital and he
has taken us through the evidence stated by the witness. From the evidence,
it is not clear that it contained a warranty as prescribed in Form VI-A.
G Counsel seeks to place reliance on the judgment of this Court in K.
Ranganatha Reddiar v. 77ze State of Kera/a, [1969] 2 SCC 457 at 459. In tOat
case, since the r.sh memo was produced as a part of the record and on
consideration of recitals, this Court had considered that when a cash memo
was given by the dealer to the accused, it must be construed in the language
employed therein and the benefit of doubt was given. In this case, we
H. cannot make any guess as to what would be the nature of the language used
I '
MURLJDHAR SHYAMLAL v. STATE 767

in the cash memo which was not filed in the absence of any specific recital A
therein. As seen in the recital ol the Panchanama, there is no mention
thereof as envisaged in Form VI-A. Under these circumstances, we are
constrained to confirm the convic1 ion and sentence minimum period of six
months; it being mandat a manda1ory after the Amendment Act, 1976, we
cannot interfere with the sentence.
B
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

G.N. Appeal dismissed.

•

.....