Case: Municipal Corporation Of Delhi Vs. Tek Chand Bhatia

an article of food is sold in the same condition in which it was purchased from the manufacturer or dealer, the vendor i.e., the retailer, like the respondent will not lose the protection of sub-section (2) of Section 19 particularly when it is certified to be of good quality. We are afraid we cannot appreciate this line of reasoning. The two decisions in Ranganatha Reddiars case and in Andhra Pradesh Grain & Seed Merchants case are clearly distinguishable. In the former case, the cash memo contained the words quality is up to the mark which meant that the quality of the article supplied was upto the standard required by the Act and the vendee. It was observed. : It must be remembered that it is not a document drafted by a solicitor; it is a document using the language of a tradesman. Any tradesman, when he is assured that the quality of the article is up to the mark will readily conclude that he is being assured that the article is not adulterated. In the latter case, it was a branded article of food, and it was said : If the article of food is sold in the same condition in which it was from a licensed manufacturer or dealer, or was purchased with a warranty, the vendor will not lose the protection of sub-section (2) of Section 19 merely because he opened the container. If the vendor has obtained the article from a licenced manufacturer, distributor or dealer or from a manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a warranty, he is protected, provided he has properly stored the article and sells it in the same state as he purchased the article, even if it turns out that the article was adulterated or misbranded. In the absence of any evidence that the respondent had purchased the cashew nuts under warranty, these authorities are of no. avail. 19. Part IX of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1855 deals with the condition of sale and licence. Rule 50 stated that no. person shall manufacture, sell, stock, distribute or exhibit for sale the articles of food mentioned therein except under a licence. nuts is one of the articles mentioned therein. It is wide enough to include cashew nuts. Originally the rules did not prescribe the standards of the quality or purity in relation to dry-fruits. That lacuna has, however, now been removed by the insertion of Rule 48-B, which is in these terms : 48-B. Sale of insect-damaged dry fruits and nuts. - The dry fruits and nuts like raisins, currents, figs, cashewnuts, apricots, almonds may contain not more than 5 per cent of insect-damaged fruits and nuts, by count. 20. Rule 12A which deals with warranty reads thus : Rule 12-A. Warranty - Every trader selling an article of food to a vendor shall, if the vendor so requires, deliver to the vendor a warranty in Form VI-A : Provided that no. warranty in such form shall be necessary if the lable on the article of food or the cash memo delivered by the trader to the vendor in respect of that article contains a warranty certifying that the food contained in the package or container or mentioned in the cash memo is the same in nature, substance and quality as demanded by the vendor. Explanation : The term trader shall mean an importer, manufacturer, wholesale dealer or an authorised agent of such importer, manufacturer or wholesale dealer. Admittedly, there was no. warranty in the prescribed form in the instant case. The testimony of the two Food Inspector, S. L. Mehra, PW 1, and H. K. Bhanot, PW 3, no. doubt show that they bought the samples out of the sealed tins, but there is nothing to show that they were tins bearing the manufacturers lable guaranteeing purity. 20A. In R. G. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra (1975) 2 SCR 886 this Court after distinguishing Andhra Pradesh Grain & Seed Merchants case observed : The reason why a warranty is required in both the cases contemplated in Section 19 (2) (a) (i) and (ii) is that if waranty were not to be insisted upon by the statute and if a vendor would be permitted to have a defence merely by stating that the vendor purchased the goods from a licenced manufacturer, distributor or dealer adulterated or misbranded articles would be marketed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers as well as purchasers from them with impunity. That is why a written warranty is enjoined in both the case in Section 19 (2) (a) (i) and (ii). Sec. 19 (2) (a) of the Act will provide a defence where a vendor purchases articles of food from a licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form. Again, 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 from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form. These salutary provisions are designed for the health of the nation. Therefore, a warranty is enjoined. No. laxity should be permitted. (Emphasis supplied). 21. That, in our opinion, really concludes the matter. In the instant case, there is no. proof that the samples were taken from tins bearing the manufacturers label guaranteeing purity of goods, nor is there any such warranty in the invoice Ext. DW 3/A. It is, however, urged that the tins bore the imprint Good. There is nothing to substantiate this fact, and even if it were so, it is of little consequence. The word Good on which great emphasis is placed merely contains a description of the goods. At the most it amounts to puffing of goods. The word Good is not a warranty as to quality. The respondent is, therefore, not protected under Section 19 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rule 12A of the rules framed under the Act.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]7. We are of the opinion that the High Court was clearly wrong in its interpretation of Section 2 (1) (f). On the plain language of the definition section, it is quite apparent that the words or is otherwise unfit for human consumption are disjunctive of the rest of the words preceding them. It relates to a distinct and separate class altogether. # It seems to us that the last clause or is otherwise unfit for human consumption is residuary provision which would apply to a case not covered by or falling squarely within the clauses preceding it. # If the phrase is to be read disjunctively the mere proof of the article of food beings filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed.....or insect infested would be per se sufficient to bring the case within the purview of the word adulterated as defined in sub-clause (f) and it would not be necessary in such a case to prove further that the article of food was unfit for human consumptionAdmittedly, there was no. warranty in the prescribed form in the instant case. The testimony of the two Food Inspector, S. L. Mehra, PW 1, and H. K. Bhanot, PW 3, no. doubt show that they bought the samples out of the sealed tins, but there is nothing to show that they were tins bearing the manufacturers lable guaranteeing purity20A. In R. G. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra (1975) 2 SCR 886     this Court after distinguishing Andhra Pradesh Grain & Seed Merchants case observed :The reason why a warranty is required in both the cases contemplated in Section 19 (2) (a) (i) and (ii) is that if waranty were not to be insisted upon by the statute and if a vendor would be permitted to have a defence merely by stating that the vendor purchased the goods from a licenced manufacturer, distributor or dealer adulterated or misbranded articles would be marketed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers as well as purchasers from them with impunity. That is why a written warranty is enjoined in both the case in Section 19 (2) (a) (i) and (ii). Sec. 19 (2) (a) of the Act will provide a defence where a vendor purchases articles of food from a licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form. Again, 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 from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form. These salutary provisions are designed for the health of the nation. Therefore, a warranty is enjoined. No. laxity should be permitted. (Emphasis supplied)21. That, in our opinion, really concludes the matter. In the instant case, there is no. proof that the samples were taken from tins bearing the manufacturers label guaranteeing purity of goods, nor is there any such warranty in the invoice Ext. DW 3/A. It is, however, urged that the tins bore the imprint Good. There is nothing to substantiate this fact, and even if it were so, it is of little consequence. The word Good on which great emphasis is placed merely contains a description of the goods. At the most it amounts to puffing of goods. The word Good is not a warranty as to quality. The respondent is, therefore, not protected under Section 19 (2) ofthe Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rule 12A of the rules framed under the Act.