(1.) In this case, Chander Bhan petitioner has been convicted under Section 16(1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act) and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. He has now come up in revision.
(2.) The petitioner is having a shop at Dadri. On June 28, 1979, 5. K. Dhawan, Government Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. U. K. Lamba went to the petitioners shop and purchased 11/2 kgs of biscuits for analysis by paying Rs. 5.10 P. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst. He gave his opinion vide his report Exhibit P.O. that the sample contained .O2% grit and its taste was also gritty. The defence of the petitioner was that he had purchased the biscuits from a Company of Rohtak and that on the day of the purchase of sample, the biscuits were in packets and at that time dusty wind was blowing. He examined three witnesses in defence.
(3.) The only argument laboured with little persistence on behalf of the petitioner is that he purchased packets of biscuits from a duly licenced manufacturer known as Ranjit Biscuits and Sweet Manufacturer, Rohtak and he sold them in the same state as he purchased them. The contention of the petitioner is that a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves that he purchased the article of food in a case where a licence is prescribed for sale thereof, from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer. The petitioner contended that the words with a written warranty in the prescribed form attached only to Section 19(2)(a)(ii) and not to Section 19 (2)(a)(i) of the Act. He claimed to have purchased the article from the company, who was a licensed manufacturer. Therefore, his contention is that he is not deemed to have committed any offence.