Case: Ranganatha Reddiar Vs. The State Of Kerala

2. The relevant facts are these. The appellant is a Rice and General Merchant and holds a wholesaler s licence. It was alleged in the complaint that the appellant had stored and exposed for sale and sold compounded Asafoetida which was found to have been adulterated by wheat starch and tapioca starch and that non-permitted orange coaltar dye was present. The report of the Public Analyst to Government, Trivandrum, was relied on in this connection3. The appellant appeared as a witness and he stated that he purchased Asafetida from L. T. Alakesan and Brothers, received it in enclosed packets in bags and sold it in bags. He received invoice which reads as follows:L. T. Alhakesan and Brothers, Asafoetida Merchants, Vellamadom Sri K. Ranganatha Reddiar Kottarakara Rate: 6.00 Particulars : C. S. T. Rs. 2. One case of Asafoetida Misky bag 30 Rs. 180.00 The quality is up to mark C. S. T. Rs. 3.60 Rs. 183.60Rupees one hundred and eighty-three and N. P. sixty onlyOne case (1d) (Id) 1/4/64 (Sd.) 147542 18/5/64He further stated that it is written on the packet as Extra Superior in English and as Compounded misky full of quality and flavour in Tamil.

Reasoning: 5. We are not concerned with the question whether Rule 12A is contrary to the provisions of the Act. We take it that it is valid and if the appellant s case falls within the proviso he is entitled to acquittalWe are unable to accede to this contention. It may be that if the warranty is not contained in a label or cash memo the warranty must be in Form VI-A8. Coming now to the language used in the cash memo it seems to us that the words quality is up to the mark mean that the quality of the article is up to the standard required by the Act and the vendee. Quality in this context would include nature and substance because the name of the article is given in the cash memo. 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. The offence, if any, has been committed by the seller and not the appellant5. We are not concerned with the question whether Rule 12A is contrary to the provisions of the Act. We take it that it is valid and if the appellant s case falls within the proviso he is entitled to acquittal9. There was some argument before us as to the difference in the meaning of the words nature, substance and quality. It was pointed out that Section 14 only uses two words nature and quality and not substance. But it is not necessary to express our views on this point. Reference was made to the case of Baburally v. Corporation of Calcutta,2 SCR 815   = (AIR 1966 SC 1569  ). This Court held that the words on the label and thed cash memo in that case did not contain the requisite warranty. But we are unable to see how that case assists either the appellant or the State.