VARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS the accused vendor entitled to succeed in his plea of warranty under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' notwithstanding the fact that he has not proved that the manufacturer from whom he purchased the article of food is duly licensed to sell the article of food which was sold to him? This is the only question canvassed before me in this revision against the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence.

(2.) ON facts, there appears to be no serious dispute. The petitioner is the 1st accused. He allegedly sold adulterated corriander powder to the Food Inspector at 12.30 P.M. on 13.5.1990. Even at the time of sale to the Food Inspector he took up a plea that he had purchased the article in sealed packets from a manufacturer who had issued to him the requisite warranty as insisted by Section 19 of the P.F.A. Act. The Courts below do not appear to have entered any finding of fact against the assertions of the vendor -petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in his plea under Section 19 of the P.F.A. Act. According to him, it is not necessary that the vendor must prove that the article was purchased by him from a duly licenced manufacturer. The burden on the accused does not saddle him with the responsibility of going in search of the manufacturer to ascertain whether he is duly licenced. He therefore deserves to be acquitted, it is urged.