LexRANGANATHA REDDIAR versus THE STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
864
RANGANATHA REDDIAR
v.
THE STATE OF. KERALA
Aug!'SI 14, 1969
A
[S. M. S!KRI, G. K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.]
B
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, s. 14--The Prevention of
Food Adulteratio,{ Rules, 1954 R. ·12-A, proviw-Scope of-Cash memo-
COl'ering food item found adulterated-Containing wording "quality upto
the mark"-If sufficient warranty in terms of proviso.
It was alleged in a complaint against the· appellant, who 'held a whole-
saler's licence, that be bad stored and sold compounded asafoetida which
C
was found to have been adulterated. It was the appellant's case that be
bad purchased the asafoetida from a distributor in enclosed packets and
that the cash memo furnished to him by the distributor stated inter alia
that "qu:ility is upto the maik". It was therefore Contended on his behalf
that the cas,~ fell within the proviso-- td Rule 12-A of the ~revention of Food
Adulteration Rules, 1955, framed under Act 37 of 1954 in that no warranty
in a prescrib~d form was necessary as the cash memo contained a warranty
that the food cOntaine,d in the package was the same in nature. substance
D
and quality as demanded by the appellant.
Although the Trial Court upheld the appellant's contention, the High
Court on appeal jleld to the contrary.
In th~ appeal to this Court it was respondent's contention that Jhe
wai'ranty n1ust 'Staie expressly that the food mentioned in the cash memo
was th~ san1e in nature, substance and quality as demanded by the vendor
E
and if these \Vords did not exist in the cash memo, the proviso would not
apply.
HBLD : Allowing the appeal :
The 'IA'b~ds "quality is upto the mark" in the cash memo meant that
the qua1itr of the article was upto the standard required by the Act and
the vendee.
Qua1ity in this context \vould include nature ~d substance
F
because the name of the article was
given in the cash memo. The cash
memo \\'3S the document using the language of. a tradesman. Any trades-
man who 1vas assured that the quality of the article was upto the mark
would readily conclude that he was oeing assured the article was not
adulter3ted. [867 HJ
When the proviso to Rule 12-A expressly says that no warranty in
the pr~ribed form shall be necessary in certain eventualities, it would be
G
re-writing the rule to hold that neverthelesS the same things must exist
in the label or the cash memo. If the W?rds used in the warranty can
reason:ibl}' be interp·reted to have the -same ,effect as certifying "the nature,
substanc~ and quality'" df an article of foop, the warranty will fall within
the oronso. [867 DJ
\
·Ci<I~!lNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Criminal App~al No.
141 of 1967.
H
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 21, 1967 of
the Kerala High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1966.
K. R, REDDIAR v. KERALA (Sikri, /.)
865
A
A. S. R. Chari, A. S. Nambiar and K. R. Nambiar, for the
B
c
D
E
appellant.
V. K. Krishna Menon and M. R. K. Pillai, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .
Sikri, J. In this appeal by certificate the only point that arises
is whether the cash memo, Ex. Dl, issued by the seller to the
appellant contains a warranty within r. 12A of the rules framed
under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act 37
of 1954), hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The Magistrate,
who tried the cOillplaint, held that Ex. Dl was a proper warranty
and it fell within the proviso to r. 12A. The High Court on
appeal held to the contrary.
·
The relevant facts are these. The appellant is a Rice &
General Merchant and holds a
wholesaler's licence. It was
alleged in the complaint that the appellant had stored and ex-
posed for sale and sold compounded asafoetida which was found
to have been adulterated by wheat starch and tapioca starch and
that non-permi,tted orange coaltar dye was present.
The report
of the Public Analyst to Government, Trivandrum, was relied on
in this connection.
The appellant appeared as a witness and he stated that he
purchased asafoetida from L. T. Alakesan and Brothers, received
it in enclosed pac](,ets in bags and sold it in bags.
He received
invoice which reads as follows :
'·Lt. T. Alhakesan & Brothers,
Asafoetida Merchants, Veliamadom
Sri K .. Ranganatha Reddicr, Kottarakara
F
Rate : 6.00
G
Particulars : C.S.T. Rs. 2. One case of Asafoetida
Misky bag 30 Rs.
180/-
The quality is up to the mark. C.S.T. Rs.
3.60
Rupees one hundrExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.