Judgment :- 1. The Food Inspector of Trivandrum Corporation has filed this appeal against the order passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate acquitting the respondent (accused) who had been prosecuted for an offence under S.16 read with S.7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. On 28th November 1962 Pw.1 one of the Food Inspectors of the Trivandrum Corporation visited the godown of the accused and found Thuvara dhall stored and exposed for sale. On suspicion that it was Kesari dhall the entire quantity was seized and sample was taken after complying with all the formalities. This fact is not disputed. Pw. 2 the Public Analyst has given evidence and proved the certificate Ex. P-4. He has stated that the sample consisted of lac dhall otherwise known as Kesari dhall or lathyrus sativus and is therefore adulterated. 3. The main defence of the accused was that the dhall found in the godown had been purchased from Dw.1 and is supported by a written warranty. Dw.1 was examined in support of this case. He is a merchant at Chalai and he claims to be a commission agent of M/s. Rambal Poonachand Godarwala in Madhya Pradesh. He has sworn that in November, 1962 he had received a consignment of thuvara dhall from the company under invoice No. 3 dated 2nd November 1962 and that he took delivery of the consignment on 25-11-1962. As he had lost the original railway receipt he has produced a duplicate receipt obtained by him from the Madura Office regarding the payment of the railway charges. He has given evidence that out of the consignment he had sold 16 bags of thuvara dhall to the accused, thai the accused demanded a warranty and he intimated the company and a warranty Ex. D-1, dated 27th November 1962 was sent to the accused by the company. He has admitted that along with the sale no warranty was given and Ex. D-1 does not show that it related to the 221 bags taken delivery of by him and sold to the accused. If Dw.1 had really sold 16 bags out of the stock received by him he should certainly have some documents to evidence the transaction. It is not known why the signatory in Ex. D-1 is not examined. D-1 does not show that it related to the 221 bags taken delivery of by him and sold to the accused. If Dw.1 had really sold 16 bags out of the stock received by him he should certainly have some documents to evidence the transaction. It is not known why the signatory in Ex. D-1 is not examined. On this evidence the learned Magistrate found that the accused was protected by the warranty and acquitted him. The correctness of the decision is challenged by the appellant. 4. The wording of S.19 (2) (i) of the Act makes it clear that the warranty must have been obtained by the vendor at the time of the purchase of the article in question. Here admittedly the warranty was not obtained at the time of the purchase and there is no case that the warranty given later was in pursuance of a contract when the sale was effected. If that be so the warranty Ex. D-1 cannot be construed as a warranty coming within the meaning of S.19 (2) and the accused cannot successfully plead that the case comes within that clause. Reference may be made to the decision in Food Inspector, Ernakulam v. Ramavarma Thirupad 1963 KLJ. 1100, and another bench decision of this court in Narayandas Kasurdas & Sons v. Food Inspector, Kozhikode 1963 KLT.1040, where the matter has been fully discussed. The acquittal of the accused is, therefore, wrong and unsustainable in law and has to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel argued that Dw.1 has been believed by the court below and there is no good reason for interference in an appeal against acquittal. Where the conclusions of the learned Magistrate are opposed to the weight of evidence and the learned Magistrate has wrongly found that Ex. D-1 is a valid warranty in law, which it is not, it becomes necessary to interfere. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of acquittal is set aside and the accused is found guilty and convicted under S.16 read with S.7 of the Act and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Time for payment of fine, one month from this date. Allowed.