(1.) This revision case is preferred by Accused No. 2 in this case. The facts leading to the present revision case are summarily as follows:
(2.) On Appeal, the Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai by his Judgment dated 12th March, 1984 acquitted the accused No.1 for the reason that there was no adequate proof that he was the owner of Murthy & Company and therefore the manufacturer of the adulterated tea, but confirmed the conviction and sentence as far as accused No.2 is concerned. So accused No.2 who stands sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment and find of Rs.1,000 has preferred this revision case.
(3.) The first ground urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is mat the appellate Court, when it has acquitted the first accused, should have also acquitted the second accused. No doubt the actual vendor in order to get exonerated under S.19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 should prove that he purchased the article of food form a manufacturer with the written warranty in the prescribed form and that he sold the article in the same state as he purchased it. As per S.14 of the Act, the manufacturer should give such a warranty whenever an article is sold. But as per the proviso of that section, a bill or cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the same given by the manufacturer would be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer. The combined effect of these two provisions is that both the manufacturer and the vendor cannot escape in throwing the fault each on the other, but if the manufacturer is clearly made known, the vendor is to be exonerated: In this case, accused No.2 was not in a position to produce any bill or cash memorandum or invoice. But he gave a statement that he purchased the tea from Murthy & Company of Tuticorin. The articles sold contained a label indicating clearly the origin. The Food Inspector was convinced that the tea sold by second accused was manufactured by Murthy Tea Company as it could be gathered from a clear statement to that effect in the Complaint itself. Once the Food Inspector has come to such a conclusion, second accused cannot be prosecuted and has to be exonerated.