CH. GURUMURTY PATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE conviction of the Petitioner under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and of fine of Rs. 2000/ -, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months awarded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aska, in 2(c) C.C. No. 4 of 1980 having been confirmed by the second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1983, the Petitioner has moved this Court in revision.

(2.) THE Petitioner has a grocery shop in the name and style of M/s. Ch. Gurumurty Patra and sons, situated at Hundamarai in the district of Ganjam. On 5.11.1979 around 11.45. a.m. suspecting the Atta, Palm Oil and Tit Oil to be adulterated, the Food Inspector of Ganjam took samples thereof, after disclosing his intention and serving a notice as required by law. On analysis, the Til oil and Palm oil samples were found to be adulterated. Prosecution was launched after observing the formalities prescribed. The plea of the Petitioner that he had purchased the articles from a reputed wholesaler and on that warranty, he sold the articles. Hence, he was not liable. Both the courts below, however, rejected the plea. The appellate court especially proceeded on the basis that the bills which were Exts. A to E were inadmissible in evidence, the same being copies.

(3.) THE next question is if the case of the Petitioner was covered by Section 19(2) read with Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Section 19(2) provides that a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food with a written warranty in the prescribed form. Section 14 stipulates that the manufacturer, distributors and dealers are to furnish a warranty in waiting in the prescribed form about the nature and quality of the articles to the vendor. The proviso to the said section is important. It reads as under: