Insect-infested food qualifies as adulterated, and a statutory warranty defence needs prescribed proof, not just an invoice.

Food proved to be filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or insect-infested is adulterated under Section 2(i)(f) on that footing alone; no additional proof that it was unfit for human consumption is required. Applying that interpretation, insect-infested cashew nuts fell within the provision. The statutory defence under Section 19(2) is available only on proof of purchase from a licensed source or with a prescribed written warranty, together with compliance with the storage and resale conditions; a mere invoice or description of goods is not enough. On the stated facts, the defence was unavailable and the conviction stood restored, with sentence modified as recorded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cashew nuts found to be insect-infested were adulterated within the meaning of the Act without further proof that they were unfit for human consumption; (ii) Whether the vendor was protected by the statutory defence based on purchase from a dealer and the accompanying invoice.

Issue (i): Whether cashew nuts found to be insect-infested were adulterated within the meaning of the Act without further proof that they were unfit for human consumption.

Analysis: The definition of adulterated food in Section 2(i)(f) was held to be disjunctive. The words describing filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or insect-infested food were treated as separate from the residuary phrase "otherwise unfit for human consumption". Once the food was shown to be insect-infested, proof of further unfitness was not necessary as a matter of legal interpretation. In any event, the evidence showed infestation well beyond the permissible level, and the sample was within the mischief of the provision.

Conclusion: The cashew nuts were adulterated under Section 2(i)(f) of the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the vendor was protected by the statutory defence based on purchase from a dealer and the accompanying invoice.

Analysis: The defence under Section 19(2) required proof of purchase from a licensed source or with a written warranty in the prescribed form, together with proper storage and resale in the same state. The record did not show a warranty in the prescribed form, nor did the invoice or the mark on the tins amount to a warranty certifying purity. Mere description of the goods was insufficient, and the protection of the statutory defence was therefore unavailable.

Conclusion: The vendor was not protected by Section 19(2) of the Act.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was restored and the acquittal was set aside, while the sentence was modified by imposing the period already undergone and a fine in place of substantive imprisonment.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 2(i)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, food proved to be filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or insect-infested is adulterated on its own, and the statutory defence under Section 19(2) is available only on proof of a prescribed written warranty and the other statutory conditions.

---