TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ('Act' for short). It is alleged that the Food Inspector, Palghat (PW3) purchased from the accused a sealed tin containing 100 grams of arrow root for the purpose of analysis and the Public Analyst found it to be adulterated. The accused took the plea that a representation of M/s. Tajus Productions, a firm located in Cannanore, about 200 kms. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... however, examined PW1 the then Food Inspector, Cannanore and he deposed that he made enquiries and came to know that the firm by the name M/s. Tajus Productions does not exist at Cannanore and accordingly he informed PW3. 3. Section 19(2) of the Act lays down as under: (2) A vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded arti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Tajus Productions had any licence. However, taking into consideration Section 19(2) along with Rule 12A what is necessary for the accused to show is that he has purchased the article from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form. In the instant case admittedly there was a bill Ex. D1 which contained the warranty. Further it Is also the admitted c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arged by the accused. From the facts of the case it is clear that the representative of M/s. Tajus Productions. Cannanore came to the medical shop of the accused and sold the article to the accused and also gave a bill Ex. D1 which contained the warranty signed by somebody on behalf of the firm. Admittedly the article was in sealed tins which were not tampered with a label to the effect that it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd he could not be expected to verify as to what the actual position was regarding the existence of the firm at a place which was 200 kms. away. It may be that the firm was in existence and if for any reason subsequently the firm does not exist, the accused cannot be deprived of the defence to which he is entitled to under Section 19(2). Therefore, in the facts of the case it must be held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
