ABDUL GAFOOR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is convicted under Section 2(ia)(a), (b), (c) and Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to six months' R I. and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer R.I. for two months. He along with five others was tried, but the learned Magistrate acquitted A-3 to A-6 and convicted A-1 and A-2. On appeal the appellate Court acquitted A-2 and convicted A-l as stated above.

(2.) The prosecution case is as follows :The Food Inspector Mahaboobndgar, inspected the shop of the accused called M/s Abdul Gaffar and Abdul Sattar Kirana Merchants in Kosgi village, in the presence of mediators. At that time A-1 was found transacting the business. The Food Inspector found three oil tins of 15 K.Gs. each and the petitioner told him that it was groundnut oil meant for sale for human consumption Then the Food Inspector purchased a sample of oil. After completing the formalities, one sample bottle was sent to the public analyst and the remaining two bottles were kept with the local health authority. The Public Analyst gave a report that the sample taken contained castor oil and therefore it is adulterated. The plea of the accused has been that he purchased these tins from the manufacturers, viz. Lakshminarayana Industries of which A-3 to A-6 are the partners. Therefore, they were also prosecuted.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act a bill, cash memo or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer or distributor of or dealer in such article to the vendor shall be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer, distributor or dealer, and as provided under Section 19 of the Act the petitioner in this case claimed the benefit mentioned therein and he shall not be deemed to have committed any offence when he proves that he purchased the article of food from the manufacturer. In the instant case, according to the learned counsel, the cash bill was produced by the petitioner at the time of Panchanama and for reasons best known the Food Inspector who is examined as P.W. 1 did not produce the same; nor was it filed into the Court, and therefore the benefit should go to the accused.