Acquittal under Food Adulteration Act; Warranty defense invalid; Prosecution fails to prove Exhibit 102

The applicants were acquitted of the offense under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the bail bonds were canceled with a refund of any fines paid. The courts found that the warranty defense under Section 19(2) was not valid due to the absence of a written warranty as required. Additionally, the prosecution failed to prove the bill (Exhibit 102) under the Evidence Act, and the proviso to Section 14 could not be invoked as the bill's issuance by the manufacturers was not established.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the warranty defense under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. Proof of the bill (Exhibit 102) under the provisions of the Evidence Act.
3. Applicability of the proviso to Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Warranty Defense under Section 19(2) of the Act:
Section 19(2) of the Act provides that a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offense if he proves that he purchased the article of food from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor, or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form. In this case, the vendor (accused No. 1 to 6) produced a bill (Exhibit 102) purportedly showing the purchase of the food article from the applicants (manufacturers). However, the bill did not contain any written warranty as required under Rule 12-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The Supreme Court in Rajaldas Gurunamal Pamanani v. State Of Maharashtra held that a written warranty is required in both cases under Section 19(2)(a)(i) and (ii). Thus, the vendor failed to prove the warranty as required under Section 19 of the Act, and the defense under Section 19(2) was not valid.

2. Proof of the Bill (Exhibit 102) under the Provisions of the Evidence Act:
The bill (Exhibit 102) was produced by the complainant (Food Inspector) but was not proved in accordance with Section 67 of the Evidence Act, which requires proving the signature and handwriting on the document. The complainant admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the execution of the bill and did not verify the authenticity of the bill with the manufacturer. The Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen held that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the bill (Exhibit 102) as required under the Evidence Act.

3. Applicability of the Proviso to Section 14 of the Act:
Section 14 of the Act mandates that a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer must provide a warranty in writing in the prescribed form when selling any article of food to a vendor. The proviso to Section 14 deems a bill, cash memorandum, or invoice as a warranty. However, for the proviso to apply, the bill must be proved to have been issued by the manufacturer. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the bill (Exhibit 102) was issued by the applicants, the proviso to Section 14 could not be invoked. The Courts below erred in relying on the bill without it being properly proved.

Conclusion:
The trial Court and the appellate Court were not justified in convicting the applicants based on the unproven bill (Exhibit 102). The applicants were acquitted of the offense under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the bail bonds were canceled with a refund of any fines paid.

---