Supreme Court Acquits Vendor in Pan Masala Adulteration Case Due to Manufacturer’s Warranty
The case of M/s Sri Mahavir Agency & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. revolves around the conviction of a vendor for selling adulterated pan masala under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, ruling that the vendor was protected under Section 19(2) of the Act as the product was sold in a sealed package with a manufacturer’s warranty.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint against a vendor, M/s Sri Mahavir Agency, under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The vendor was accused of selling adulterated pan masala (‘Pan Parag’), which was found to be non-compliant with prescribed food standards.
The trial court convicted the vendor and sentenced him to six months of rigorous imprisonment. The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Calcutta, upheld the conviction in Criminal Appeal No.106/2007. The vendor’s revision petition before the Calcutta High Court was also dismissed on June 8, 2016. The vendor then approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Before the Court
- Whether the vendor could be held liable for selling adulterated food when the product was purchased in a sealed package from the manufacturer.
- Whether the vendor was entitled to protection under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
- Whether the absence of a manufacturer’s warranty in the prescribed format affected the vendor’s defense.
Arguments by the Petitioner (Vendor – M/s Sri Mahavir Agency)
The vendor’s counsel argued:
- “The vendor had purchased the product from M/s Kothari Pouches Limited, the manufacturer, in a sealed condition.”
- “The invoice contained a specific note that the product was warranted to be of the nature and quality which it purported to be.”
- “Section 19(2) of the Act provides protection to a vendor who sells a product in the same condition as purchased.”
- “The courts below failed to consider the legal protection available to the vendor.”
Arguments by the Respondent (State of West Bengal)
The State opposed the appeal, arguing:
- “The product was tested twice and found to be non-compliant with food standards.”
- “The vendor did not furnish a manufacturer’s warranty in the prescribed format under Rule 12A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.”
- “Only manufacturers, not vendors, can be held liable under the Act, but the vendor must establish a valid defense under Section 19(2).”
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment
The Supreme Court examined Sections 14 and 19 of the Act and relevant case laws. It observed:
- “Section 19(2) provides immunity to a vendor who sells a product in the same condition as purchased if a written warranty is provided.”
- “The invoice issued by the manufacturer contained a declaration that the goods were warranted to be of the nature and quality they purported to be, satisfying the requirement of Section 14.”
- “The vendor was not liable as per the ruling in Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel vs. State of Maharashtra, where the term ‘vendor’ was interpreted to include a person who sells a product as received.”
The Court ruled:
“The appeal is allowed. The conviction of the vendor under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is set aside.”
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- Vendors who sell packaged food in sealed condition with a manufacturer’s warranty are not liable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
- Section 19(2) provides complete immunity if the vendor meets the legal requirements.
- The manufacturer must be held accountable for food adulteration in such cases, not the vendor.
Impact of the Judgment
This ruling strengthens the legal protection available to vendors under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It clarifies that vendors cannot be held liable for adulteration if they sell products in the same condition as received from the manufacturer with a warranty. This decision will impact future cases involving liability for food adulteration and reinforce consumer protection laws.
Petitioner Name: M/s Sri Mahavir Agency & Anr..Respondent Name: The State of West Bengal & Anr..Judgment By: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Rajesh Bindal.Place Of Incident: Calcutta, West Bengal.Judgment Date: 17-04-2023.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: ms-sri-mahavir-agen-vs-the-state-of-west-be-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-17-04-2023.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Consumer Rights
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by Rajesh Bindal
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
