Amar Chand and ors. vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

The petitioners have filed this petition praying that the proceeding which have been drawn up in pursuance of the summoning order (copy Annexure P.3) passed by the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala dated April 6, 1983, should be quashed.

Without going into the details of the grounds taken in the petition, in substance the allegations therein amount to these : On 23rd December, 1981 Dr. Sukhdev SIngh Mangat, Government Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. A.K. Khullar went to the premises of the petitioner and purchased 3 packets of chillies powder containing 500 gms each from Amar Chand for analysis. After completing the formalities, the sample sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated. It is said that at the time, the sample of chillies powder was purchased from Amar Chand petitioner, the latter told the Food Inspector that he had purchased the sealed packets containing chillies powder from M/s. Garg Masala Co. and also showed him the bill and the warranty obtained from the said concern. The Judicial Magistrate, however, found a prima facie case against the petitioners and M/s. Garg Masala Co. and accordingly summoned them for May 3, 1983. By means of the present petition that order of the Magistrate is sought to be quashed by invoking the provisions of S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

S. 19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act) 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 from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form and that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that had sold it in the same state as he had purchased it. In this case, the petitioners had purchased packets containing chillies power from the manufacturers M/s. Garg Masala Co. and Amar Chand petitioner had sold to the Food Inspector 3 packets containing chillies powder in the same state in which he had purchased them. But he did not have a written warranty in the prescribed form from the manufacturers.

S. 14 of the Act reads as follows :

"14. Manufacturers, distributors and dealers to give warranty :

No manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in, any article of food shall sell such article to any vendor unless he also gives a warranty in writing in the prescribed form about the nature and quality of such article to the vendor :

Provided that a bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer of distributor of, or dealer in, such article to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer, distributor or dealer under this section."

A reading of the proviso shows that a bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer or distributor or dealer in such article to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be warranty given by such manufacturer, distributor or dealer under that section. In this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the photostat copy of a cash memo issued by M/s Garg Masala Co., Samana Mandi, manufacturers of all kinds of spices, which indicates that packets containing chillies powder worth Rs. 330/ were sold to the petitioners on 16.10.1981. According to this proviso, this cash memo will be deemed to be a warranty in writing in the prescribed form given by the manufacturer under S. 14 of the Act.

Mr. G.S. Savra has, however, submitted that under Rule 12A of the Rules framed under the Act every manufacturer, distributor or dealer selling an article of food to a vendor, shall give either separately or in the bill, cash memo or label a warranty in Form VIA and that since the cash bill in this case does not contain the warranty in Form VIA, the proviso to S. 14 of the Act has no application. The proviso does not say that the cash bill should be in accordance with Rule 12A of the Rules then that itself is the warranty and there is no question of deeming it to be a warranty under the proviso to S. 14 of the Act. On the other hand, the proviso to S. 14 makes it clear that it a bill is given for the sale of an article by the manufacturer, it would be deemed to be a warranty given by the manufacturer.

A perusal of the provisions of S. 19 of the Act, reproduced above, reveals that a vendor who had distributor or dealer with a warranty, shall not be deemed to have committed any offence pertaining to sale of any adulterated article of food if the article of food was properly sealed and stored in the same condition. The packets containing chillies powder at the time of their sale were properly sealed and labelled by the Food Inspector. The form VI issued by the Food Inspector, now placed on the record shows that the bill issued by M/s Garg Masala was shown to the Inspector. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 had purchased chillies powder under a legal and valid warranty. They cannot therefore, be held guilty for the sale of the article purchased by them under a warranty and, therefore, they cannot be deemed to be guilty in view of the language of S. 19 of the Act. In these circumstances, any further proceedings against them will only be an abuse of process of law.

For the foregoing reasons I allow this petition and quash the complaint and the proceedings qua Amar Chand, Kirpa Ram, Bhim Sain and Bhagat Ram petitioners in case State v. Amar Chand and others, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala under Ss. 7/16 of the Act.