INDU BALA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the appli cant Smt. Indu Bala Pandey against her conviction under Section 7|16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence awarded to her. The learned Magistrate convicted the applicant for selling ground 'Haldi' dyed with prohibited colour. He awarded her the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court a fine of Rs. 1,000. The learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but reduced the fine to Rs. 500.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that the applicant carried on a busi ness of selling spices, including Haldi in powdered form in packets. The Food Inspector purchased a sample of Haldi and sent it for chemi cal analysis and it was found to contain prohibited colour. The defence of the applicant was that she had purchased the 'Haldi' from the market and had ground it.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was not guilty as she had given evidence that she had purchased the arti cle from another person. Section 19 of the Act however saves the purchaser only if the purchase is made with a written warranty in the prescribed form. No warranty has been produced in this case. Clause (1) of Section 19 says that mere ignorance of the vendor about the nature of the substance or quality of the food sold by him would be no defence.