LAWS(KER)-1963-10-38

DAMODARA PRABHU Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM MUNICIPALITY

Decided On October 18, 1963
Damodara Prabhu Appellant
V/S
FOOD INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM MUNICIPALITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is a dealer in grocery articles. On 1-2-1961 the Food Inspector purchased from his shop 180 grams of compounded asafoetida for the purpose of analysis. When analysed by the Public Analyst it was found adulterated. The petitioner contended that the asafoetida sold was out of the consignment purchased by him from M/s. Narandas Kesurdas and Sons, Madras with a written warranty and pleaded exoneration under S.19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He has further submitted to the Food Inspector a copy of the warranty with a written notice stating that he intends to rely on it and specifying the name and address of the person from whom he has received it and has also sent a like notice of his intention to that person.

(2.) The petitioner gave evidence as D. W. 1 that the asafoetida sold to the Food Inspector was out of the stock purchased by him under Ext. D. 2 invoice and that Ext. D. 1 printed letter by the company containing the requisite warranty was sent along with the invoice. The correctness of these facts is not disputed before me.

(3.) The short point arising for determination in this revision is whether Ext. D. 1 would amount to a warranty as contemplated in S.19(2). For claiming the benefit of S.19(2) a vendor shall have to prove three facts.