RANGANATH REDDIAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by certificate the only point that arises is whether the cash memo. Ex. D1, issued by the seller to the appellant contains a warranty within Rule 12A of the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act 37 of 1954), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Magistrate, who tried the complaint, held that Ex. D1 was a proper warranty and it fell within the proviso to Rule 12A. The High Court on appeal held to the contrary.

(2.) The relevant facts are these. The appellant is a Rice and General Merchant and holds a wholesaler' s licence. It was alleged in the complaint that the appellant had stored and exposed for sale and sold compounded Asafoetida which was found to have been adulterated by wheat starch and tapioca starch and that non-permitted orange coaltar dye was present. The report of the Public Analyst to Government, Trivandrum, was relied on in this connection.

(3.) The appellant appeared as a witness and he stated that he purchased Asafetida from L. T. Alakesan and Brothers, received it in enclosed packets in bags and sold it in bags. He received invoice which reads as follows: