Proof of statutory warranty and bill execution is essential before invoking food adulteration defences and deeming provisions.

Statutory protection under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act required proof of a purchase from a duly licensed manufacturer and a written warranty in the prescribed form; a mere bill was insufficient, so the defence failed. Marking Exhibit 102 as an exhibit did not by itself prove its execution, genuineness, or contents, and no evidence established that it was issued by the manufacturers. The proviso to Section 14 also depended on proof that the bill, cash memorandum, or invoice was issued by the manufacturer to the vendor, which was absent. The discussion concludes that the foundational bill was not proved and the deeming warranty did not operate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the vendor had proved the statutory warranty so as to attract the defence under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; (ii) Whether Exhibit 102, the bill relied upon by the prosecution, was proved in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; (iii) Whether the proviso to Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was attracted on the facts.

Issue (i): Whether the vendor had proved the statutory warranty so as to attract the defence under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Analysis: To claim the statutory protection, the vendor had to establish that the article was purchased from a duly licensed manufacturer and that the purchase was supported by a written warranty in the prescribed form, while the article was stored and sold in the same condition. The record showed that the bill relied upon contained no warranty in the prescribed form. Mere production of a bill was insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of warranty.

Conclusion: The defence under Section 19(2) was not proved and the conclusion was against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether Exhibit 102, the bill relied upon by the prosecution, was proved in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Analysis: Marking a document as an exhibit does not by itself prove its execution or contents. The prosecution led no evidence to prove the handwriting, signature, or genuineness of the bill as a document issued by the manufacturers. The complainant only proved that the vendor had produced the bill before him; that did not establish that the bill had in fact been issued by the applicants or that its contents were true.

Conclusion: Exhibit 102 was not proved in accordance with law and could not be read in evidence against the applicants.

Issue (iii): Whether the proviso to Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was attracted on the facts.

Analysis: The proviso creates a deeming fiction only when a bill, cash memorandum, or invoice issued by the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer in respect of the sale to the vendor is proved. Since the issuance and contents of Exhibit 102 were not proved, the condition precedent for invoking the deeming fiction was absent. The subordinate rules could not be relied upon to displace the statutory requirement, and the proviso itself did not operate without proof that the bill was issued by the applicants.

Conclusion: The proviso to Section 14 was not attracted.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence could not be sustained because the foundational bill was not proved and the statutory defence and deeming provision were not established; the applicants were therefore entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere production or marking of a bill as an exhibit does not prove its execution or contents, and the deeming warranty under the proviso to Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 arises only when the bill issued by the manufacturer to the vendor is duly proved.

---