M/S SRI MAHAVIR AGENCY & ANR. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 17-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 126
126
M/s SRI MAHAVIR AGENCY & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 982 of 2023)
APRIL 17, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 : ss.7, 14,
16(1)(a)(i), 19(2) – Food Adulteration – Protection u/s. 19(2), to
the vendor – Availability of – Appellant purchased ‘Pan Parag’
from the manufacturer through invoices and sold the same – Sample
of ‘Pan masala’ collected from the business premises of the buyer
of pan masala, from the appellant – Samples seized tested and found
to be below standard – Appellant’s case that he is merely a vendor
who purchased pan masala from the manufacturer in sealed packet
and sold it to its customers; and that manufacturer had given warranty
about the nature and quality of product sold, thus, pleaded protection
u/s. 19(2) – Trial court gave the buyers the benefit of protection u/
s. 19(2), however, held the appellant guilty u/s. 16(1)(a)(i) rw s. 7 –
Order of conviction and sentence upheld by the courts below – On
appeal, held: Sub-clause (ii) of s. 19(2)(a) 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 if he proves
that he purchased the article of food from any manufacturer,
distributor or dealer with a written warranty in prescribed form –
Appellant was having a valid defence in terms of s. 19(2) as the
packed item sold by him namely ‘Pan Parag’, was having a written
warranty in prescribed form from the manufacturer – Hence, had
the protection available u/s. 19(2)(a) – Impugned judgment and
order of the High Court set aside – Prevention of Food Adulteration
Rules, 1955 – r. 12A.
Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel and another v. State of
Maharashtra State 1965(2) SCR 894 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
1965 (2) SCR 894
referred to
Para 14
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
127
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
982 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.06.2016 of the High Court
at Calcutta in CRR No. 64 of 2014.
A.K. Sengupta, Suraj Prakash, Sujeet Kumar Gupta,
Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Astha Sharma, Srisatya Mohanty, Sanjeev
Kaushik, Ms. Mantika Haryani, Shreyas Awasthi, Himanshu Chakravarty,
Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Divyansh Tiwari, Bhanu Mishra, Devvrat Singh,
Ms. Muskan Surana, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit
Bansal, Ms. Kshitij Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. The appellant was accused in a complaint filed under Section
16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”). He was convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months by Senior
Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta. In appeal, the conviction and sentence
of the appellant was upheld by the Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court, Calcutta vide judgment dated 26.06.2009 in Criminal
Appeal No.106/2007. The order was challenged before the High Court
at Calcutta by filing a revision petition bearing C.R.R. No.64/2014 which
was dismissed on 08.06.2016. The judgment has been impugned before
this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant raised a legal argument and
submitted that the appellant is merely a vendor who purchased food
item pan masala, namely, ‘Pan Parag’ from M/s Kothari Pouches Limited,
the manufacturer, in sealed packaged condition and sold it to its customers.
In terms of Section 14 of the Act, the manufacturer had given warranty
about the nature and quality of the product sold by the petitioners. It was
in the form of a bill having a specific note with reference to the warranty.
The protection is available to the appellant in terms of Section 19(2) of
the Act which provides for defences which may be available in
prosecutions under the Act. The Courts below failed to consider the
aforesaid legal argument and upheld the conviction.
M/s SRI MAHAVIR AGENCY & ANR. v. THE STATE OF WEST
BENGAL & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that it is a case in which samples of pan masala namely ‘Pan
Parag’ were collected from the business premises of Chanda Aggarwal,
buyer of pan masala from the appellant. Initially complaint was filed
against Chanda Aggarwal and Binod Agarwal. Howeve

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