In appeal, the conviction and sentence of the appellant was upheld by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Calcutta vide judgment dated 26.06.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.106/2007.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/disclosure-and-recovery-of-weapon-a-key-factor-in-conviction/
Only the appellant was convicted in the said matter as Chanda Aggarwal and Binod Agarwal were given benefit of protection under Section 19(2) of the Act. The samples of seized pan masala were tested twice, once by the Public Analyst for Calcutta Municipal Corporation and then by Central Food Laboratory at CFTRI, Mysore on the application of the appellant. Another argument raised is that the appellant cannot be said to be a vendor.
To appreciate the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, reference to provisions of Sections 14 and 19 of the Act would be relevant.
(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— (i) in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof, from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor, or dealer. – Every manufacturer, distributor, or dealer selling an article of food to a vendor shall give either separately or in the bill, cash memo or a label a warranty in Form VIA.” Proviso to Section 14 thereof provides that a bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in, such article to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer, distributor or dealer. A conjoint reading of Section 14, Rule 12A and Form VIA provides that no manufacturer or distributor or a dealer of any food article shall sell such article to any vendor unless he has given a warranty in writing in the prescribed form regarding nature and quality of such articles to the vendor.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/moratorium-application-in-insolvency-case/
Proviso Section 14 provides that even a bill, cash memo or invoice in respect of sale of any article given by the manufacturer or distributor or dealer shall be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer, distributor or dealer.
The Bench stated:-
“The word “Vendor” though not defined in the Act, would obviously mean the person who had sold the article of food which is alleged to be adulterated.”
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/legal-analysis-juvenile-justice-act-and-incarceration-period/
In the case in hand, it is the appellant who sold the article of food after purchasing the same from the manufacturer through the invoices which contained the warranty as prescribed under the Act and the Rules. Hence, he had the protection available under Section 19(2)(a) of the Act.
Case Title: M/S. SRI MAHAVIR AGENCY Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL (2023 INSC 375)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000982-000982 / 2023
