http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: RANGANATHA REDDIAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF KERALA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/08/1969

BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. MITTER, G.K. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

CITATION:  1970 AIR  520            1970 SCR  (1) 864  1969 SCC  (2) 457  CITATOR INFO :  D          1980 SC 360  (18)

ACT:     Prevention  of Food Adulteration Act, 1954,  s.  14--The Prevention  of  Food  Adulteration  Rules,  1954  R.   12-A, proviso--Scope  of---Cash  memo-covering  food  item   found adulterated-Containing  wording "quality upto the  mark"--If sufficient warranty in terms of proviso.

HEADNOTE: It   was alleged in a complaint against the  appellant,  who held  a  wholesaler’s license, that he had stored  and  sold compounded   asafoetida  which  was  found  to   have   been adulterated.   It  was  the appellant’s  case  that  he  had purchased  the  asafoetida from a  distributor  in  enclosed packets  and  that  the cash memo furnished to  him  by  the distributor  stated  inter alia that "quality  is  upto  the mark".   It was therefore contended on his behalf  that  the case fell within the proviso to Rule 12-A of the  Prevention of  Food  Adulteration Rules, 1955, framed under Act  37  of 1954 in that no warranty in a prescribed form was  necessary as  the  cash  memo  contained  a  warranty  that  the  food contained  in the package was the same in nature,  substance and quality as demanded by the appellant.     Although   the  Trial  Court  upheld   the   appellant’s contention, the High Court on appeal held to the contrary.     In  the  appeal  to  this  Court  it  was   respondent’s contention  that the warranty must state expressly that  the food  mentioned  in the cash memo was the  same  in  nature, substance and quality as demanded by the vendor and if these words did not exist in the cash memo, the proviso would  not apply. HELD: Allowing the appeal:     The  words "quality is upto the mark" in the  cash  memo meant that the quality of the article was upto the  standard required by the Act and the vendee.  Quality in this context would  include nature and substance because the name of  the article was  given  in the cash memo. The cash memo was  the document  using the language of a tradesman.  Any  tradesman who was assured that the quality of the article was upto the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

mark would ’readily conclude that he was being  assured  the article  was  not adulterated. [867 H]     When  the  proviso to Rule 12-A expressly says  that  no warranty  in  the  prescribed form  shall  be  necessary  in certain  eventualities,  it would be rewriting the  rule  to hold  that nevertheless  the  same things must exist in  the label  or the cash memo.  If the words used in the  warranty can  reasonably  be interpreted to have the same  effect  as certifying "the nature, substance and quality" of an article of food, the warranty wilt fail within the proviso. [867 D]

JUDGMENT:     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1967.     Appeal  from the judgment and order dated July 21,  1967 of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1966. 865      A.S.R.  Chari, A. S. Nambiar and K.R. Nambiar, for  the appellant. V.K.  Krishna Menon and’ M.R.K. Pillar, 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. D1, 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 complaint,  held  that Ex. D1 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  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 connection.     The appellant appeared as a witness and he stated   that he  purchased  asafoetida 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:    "Lt. T. Alhakesan & Brothers,    Asafoetida Merchants, Veliamadom    Sri K. Ranganatha Reddier, Kottarakara    Rate:     6.00 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                                     --------------                                        Rs. 183.60 Rupees one hundred and eighty three and N.P. sixty only. One case (1d) (Id) 1/4/64 (Sd.) 147542 18/5/64" He  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."               The relevant statutory provisions are:               866               The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954                     "S. 14. Manufacturers, distributors  and               dealers  to give warranty.--               No manufacturer, distributor or dealer of  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

             article  food shall sell such article  to  any               vendor  unless  he also gives  a  warranty  in               writing  in  the  prescribed  form  about  the               nature  and quality of such  article  to   the               vendor."                     "S.  19(2). A vendor shah not be  deemed               to  have  committed an offence  pertaining  to               the  sale  of  any adulterated  or  misbranded               article of food if he proved---               (a) that he purchased the article of food--                      (i)  in  a  case  where  a  license  is               prescribed for the sale thereof,  from a  duly               licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer,                      (ii)  in  any  other  case,  from   any               manufacturer,  distributor or dealer,  with  a               written warranty in the prescribed form; and                   (b) that the article of food while in  his               possession  was properly stored and   that  he               sold it in the same state as he purchased it."               The  Prevention  of Food  Adulteration  Rules,               1955                     "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 label 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."                   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 acquittal. 867     It  was contended before us on behalf of the  respondent that  the  warranty  must  state  expressly  that  the  food mentioned  in  the  cash  memo  was  the  same  in   nature, substance  and   quality as demanded by the vendor,  and  if these  words  did not exist in the cash  memo,  the  proviso would   not  apply.   We  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-A, which uses these words:       "We  hereby certify that the food/foods  mentioned  in this  invoice is/are warranted  to be the  same  in  nature, substance and quality as that demanded by the vendor." But  we do not decide this as it is not necessary to do  so. In our view when the proviso expressly says that no warranty in such form shall be necessary in certain eventualities  it would  be rewriting the rule to hold that  nevertheless  the same  things must exist in the label or the cash  memo.   It seems to us that if the words in the warranty can reasonably be interpreted to have the s_nine effect as certifying  "the nature, substance and  quality"  of  an article of food, the warranty  will fall within the proviso.  The Act is of  wide

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

application  and  millions of small traders have  to  comply with  the provisions of the Act and the Rules.  The  learned counsel  for  the State says that if they are  not  able  to comply  with  the provisions they should  stop  carrying  on their  trade.  But if the object underlying the Act  can  be achieved,  without  disorganising  the trade,  by  giving  a reasonable interpretation to Rule 12A, it is our duty to  do so.     A number of English cases were referred to us, but we do not find it necessary to refer to them as they interpret the Sale  of Food & Drugs Act, 1875, and the later Food &  Drugs Act,  1955.  The language of the relevant  sections  dealing with   defences   is  different  and  warranties   employing different  words  have  been interpreted.  But  they  do  at least  show  this  that trade  can  be carried  on  and  the object  of  the  Act is not  defeated  even if  traders  use ordinary  language  of  the trade  or  popular  language  in warranties.     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 868 that  the article is not adulterated.  The offence, if  any, has been committed by the seller and not the appellant.     There  was some argument before as to the difference  in the  meaning of the words "nature,  substance and  quality". It  was pointed out that s. 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(1).  This Court held that the words on the label and the so called 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.     In  the result the appeal is allowed,  judgment  of  the High  Court set aside and that of the  Magistrate  restored. The appellant’s bail bond shall be treated as cancelled. R.K.P.S.                                   Appeal allowed. (1) [1966] 2 S.C.R. 815. 869