In that case after considering the effect of section 19 (2), section 20 and section 20 A of the Act, Court observed at pages 36 37 thus: "We are also unable to accept as correct a line of reasoning found in V. N. Chokra vs The State A. I. R. 1966 Punjab 421 and Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality vs Setharam Rice & Oil Mills (1974) F. A. C. P. 534 and P. B. Kurup vs Food Inspector, Malappuram Panchayat (1969) Kerala Law Times, P. 845 that in every case under the Act, there has to be initially a prosecution of a particular seller only, but those who may have passed on or sold the adulterated article of food the vendor, who is being prosecuted, could only be brought in subsequently after a warranty set up under section 19 (2) has been pleaded and shown to be substantiated.