M/S. BABURALLY SARDAR AND ANOTHER versus CORPORATION OF CALCUTIA

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 815 · Decided: 29-11-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.R. MUDHOLKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
.. 
• -
A 
M/S. BABURALLY SARDAR AND ANOTHER 
v. 
CORPORATION OF CALCUTIA 
November 29, 1965 
815 
B 
(J. R. MUDHOLKAR, R. S. BACHAWAT AND P. SATYANARAYANA 
RAJU, JJ.] 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), s. 19(2) 
and proviso to Rule 12-A-Descrz'ption of contents on label of tin-
Contents describ,ed 
as "Full 
cream sweetened condensed 1nilk'' 
and 
"scle/1/ifically preserved pure and produced from healthy cow's milk''-
C 
Description lvhether an1ounts to lvarranty under the Act. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Samples of a certain brand of tinned condensed 
milk were 
taken 
from the appellant>' shop by the Food Inspector. The Public Analyst 
found the fat content of the condensed 
milk below standard. When 
prosecuted uuder s. 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration 
Act, 1954 the appellants took a plea based on s. 19(2) of the Act and 
claimed that the label on the tins was a warranty within the meaning 
of that section as well as of the proviso to Rule 12-A. The label on the 
tins described the milk as "Full cream sweetened condensed milk made 
on formula of Holland product" and inter alia said : "The contents of 
the tin are scientifically preserved, pure and produced 
from 
healthy 
cow's milk." The trial Magistrate 
accepted the 
appellants' 
plea and 
acquitted them but on appeal 
by the State the High Court convicted 
them. They appealed to this Court with certificate. 
HELD: (i) Defence under s. 19(2) of the Act was available to the 
appeHants provided they showed in the first place, that what was stored 
by them for sale to the purchasers demanding condensed milk was in 
fact milk which had been concentrated from full cream milk so as to 
conform to the standard of quality given in A 11.07 of 
Appendix B . 
For, it would be milk which satisfies the standard 
prescribed 
therein 
which can be regarded as 'condensed milk' under the Act. Since how-
ever the milk stored by the appellants was found to be below standard 
it could not be regarded as 'the same in nature! 
substance and quality 
as that demanded by the purchaser'. Nor again 
had 
the 
appellants 
obtained a \Varranty in the prescribed form. 
Thus the requirements of 
s. 19(2) (i) were not satisfied. [819 B-C] 
(ii) No doubt, under the proviso to Rule 12-A no warranty in the 
prescribed form is necessary if the label on the article of food or cash 
memo delivered by the trader to the vendor in respect of that article 
contains a warranty certifying that the food contained in the container 
or mentioned in the cash memo is the same in nature! 
substance and 
quality as demanded by the vendor. 
But the labels on the tins stored 
by the appellants contained no warranty of the kind referred to in the 
proviso. The labels were not in the form prescribed under r. 42B(b) 
and it was not possible from the matter printed thereon to ascertain by 
reference to standard tables the quantity of milk solids and fat from the 
quantity of milk condensed and from the quantity of condensed milk 
contained in the tin. 
[819 D-820 D] 
(iii) The words "Full cream" 011 the tin did not satisfy the require-
ments of the Jaw either. 
'Full cream' has nowhere been defined in the 
Act or the rules. Without knowing the quantity of 'full cream' which 
816 
SUPREME 
COURT REPORTS 
[1966] 2 S.C.R. 
was condensed in the milk contained in each tin it was impossible even 
to calculate the quantity of milk solids and fat in each tin. The label 
therefore was of little assistance to the appellants. [820 D-E] 
Similarly the cash memos carried no warranty whatsoever. 
(iv) When a vendor accepts from the trader tins purported to be of 
condensed milk bearing a label of the above kind he cannot be said to 
have "had no reason to believe" that it was not condensed milk of the 
prescribed nature, substance and quality. It may be that the appellants 
sold the tins in the same state as they purchased them. 
But this fact 
was by itself not sufficient to absolve them. [820 Fl 
Per Bachawat, J-The defence under s. 19(2) of the Act could not 
succeed as the appellants failed to prove that they purchased the articles 
of food with a written wananty in the prescribed form. The label on the 
A 
B 
tin container gave a description of the article of 
food but it did not 
C 
give a warranty certifying that the food was the same in nature, subs-
tance and quality as demanded by the vendor. 
In the absence of such 
a warranty, the appellants had failed 
to establish the 
defence under

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.