JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition against the judgment dated 21-8-79 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk on 26-2-77. The accused-petitioner was convicted Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to one year's RI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, or in default of payment of fine to further under go 3 months imprisonment. 2. In this case it is not disputed that the shop of the petitioner was inspected by the Food Inspector on 20-8-73 and sample of Til oil was taken by the Food Inspector Shri Shabbir Ahmed (PW 1), which was purchased by him. Form F-6 was given to the petitioner in respect of this transaction. The petitioner before signing the form (Ex. P 1) mentioned that the oil, the sample of which was taken was Ganpati Mark oil and the same was purchased from M/s Ratan Oil Mills, Jaipur. On Ex.P3 also the same objection was taken by the petitioner and he wrote the same objection on it. Thus, in all the documents prepared by the Food Inspector the petitioner expressed that the goods sold by him were the products of M/s. Ratan Oil Mills, Jaipur. It has not been disputed that the oil in question was adulterated. After obtaining the report of the Public Analyst, a complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk which was submitted by the PP (Perokar) of Municipal Council, Tonk. Necessary charge was framed against the accused-petitioner, who denied the same and claimed to be tried. Two witnesses were examined in support of the charge. The accused-petitioner himself appeared as a defence witness, and produced one more Manoharlal as DW 2 in support of his statement. After hearing arguments, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the accused-petititoner guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid. An appeal against the order of conviction and sentence was tiled before the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk but without any success. Hence this revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Submitted that the complaint was not filed in the Court of C.J.M., Tonk by a person who was authorised by the Commissioner, Municipal Council. Hence this revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Submitted that the complaint was not filed in the Court of C.J.M., Tonk by a person who was authorised by the Commissioner, Municipal Council. Sanction to prosecute the accused petitioner was specifically given in the name of Shri Shabbir Ahmed vide Ex. P 7, but the complaint was filed by the PP of the Municipal Council, Tonk. Such sort of complaint was not entertainable, because the PP was not competent to file the complaint, and thus the whole proceedings are vitiated because of this defect. It has been further contended that at the time when Shri Shabbir Ahmed inspected the shop and took the sample of oil, it was brought to his notice that the oil in question was purchased from M/s Ratan Oil Mills, Jaipur, and a note was given on Exs.P 1 and P 3. Therefore the Food Inspector was duty bound to make an enquiry under Rule 9(i) of the Food Adulteration Rules. 5. Learned PP on the other hand submitted that the judgment passed by both the courts below is justified and the accused-petitioner has been rightly convicted. 6. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. It is correct to say that vide Ex. P 7 the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Tonk had authorised Shri Shabbir Ahmed to file complaint against the accused-petitioner. The complaint has been signed by the Food Inspector, and bears the endorsement "submitted with the signature" which are not of Shri Shabbir Ahmed but are probably of the Public Prosecutor of the Municipal Council. The order sheet of the Court of CJM shows that the complaint was presented by the Public Prosecutor of the Municipal Council. The subsequent order sheets of the Court show that the trial was conducted by the Public Prosecutor (Perokar) of the Municipal Council. There is nothing on record to show that the Public Prosecutor had the authority to present the complaint an behalf of Shabbir Ahmed Food Inspector or to conduct the case on his behalf. In view of the decision of this Court in Dalia v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Cr. Revision No. 159 of 1978, decided on 29-11-1982 by the learned Single Judge (Mr. In view of the decision of this Court in Dalia v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Cr. Revision No. 159 of 1978, decided on 29-11-1982 by the learned Single Judge (Mr. M.C. Jain), State of Rajasthan v. Jai Narain and State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal 1984 RRC 28 . it must be held that the complaint was presented by an unauthorised person and the trial was also conducted by an unauthorised person. The trial, therefore, stands vitiated and no conviction can be recorded on such a trial. 8. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not without force. As slated earlier, the documents (Exs. P 1 and P 3) produced in support of the complaint . bear the note written by the accused-petitioner wherein it was stated that the oil in question was purchased by him from M/s Ratan Oil Mills Jaipur. After this objection it was mandatory on the part of the Food Inspector to have enquired about it. Because Section 19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954) exonerate the vendor of any goods which are subsequently found as adulterated, but that purchase should be under a warranty and should be purchased from a person who actually produces or manufactures the goods in question so that the responsibility may be shifted to the manufacturer of the goods. In the instant ease, the Food Inspector was completely negligent in performing his duties, as is provided under Rule 9(f) of the Food Adulteration Rules, which reads as under; "to make such inquiries and inspections as may be necessary to detect the manufacture, storage or sale of articles of food in contravention of the Act or rules framed thereunder". The Food Inspector in order to save his skin stated his ignorance about this written objection of the accused-petitioner on Exs. 1 and P.3 at the time of his statement before the trial court, although the Food Inspector had prepared these documents and the notes were there on Ex. P1 and P,3. The learned trial court and the learned Sessions Judge considered the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1954, but wrongly concluded that Ex. D. 1 does not pertain to the oil in question. I do not agree with this finding of both the courts below. P1 and P,3. The learned trial court and the learned Sessions Judge considered the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1954, but wrongly concluded that Ex. D. 1 does not pertain to the oil in question. I do not agree with this finding of both the courts below. The contents of Ex D 1 clearly show that the Til oil costing Rs. 2576.91 nP. was sold by the Ratan Oil and Dal Mills Jaipur to M/s. Kaluram Phoolchand of Tonk. Trade Mark of the oil is also mentioned on Ex. D. 1, which is in the form of a bill. I fail to understand as why Ex. D. 1 should not be treated as a warranty as is defined under Section 19 of the Act of 1954. It is correct to say that Ex. D. 1 is not in the form of a bill, but in order to attract the provisions of Section 19 and Section 14 of the Act of 1954, I am of the opinion that Ex. D. 1 serves the purpose. Both the courts below have based their findings purely on technicalities and not on actual facts apparent on the face of record. The provisions of Section 19 and 14 of the Act of 1954 being procedural in nature would have retrospective effect and the courts can take into consideration any change of law. The aforesaid section indicates that the vendor will not be held guilty for having sold adulterated food, if he proves that he had purchased the same either from a licenced manufacturer, distributor or dealer or from any other manufacturer, distributor or dealer, but that transaction should be under a warranty. Proviso to Section 14 of the Act of 1954 reads as under: "Provided that a bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of food given by a manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in, such article to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be a Warranty given by such manufacturer, distributor or dealer under this section. It is thus clear that it is not necessary that only a bill can be termed as warranty. A cash memorandum or invoice can also be treated as a warranty under Sections 14 and 19 of the 1954. It is thus clear that it is not necessary that only a bill can be termed as warranty. A cash memorandum or invoice can also be treated as a warranty under Sections 14 and 19 of the 1954. The case of the applicant is that he purchased the oil from M/s Ratan Oil Mills, Jaipur and it remained in the same condition at the shop of the petitioner as was purchased. In support of this fact the accused produced himself as a witness and one Manoharlal. He also filed a bill in the form of cash memorandum (Ex. D. 1) and trade mark label (Ex. D. 2) as also the seal of the tin (Ex. D. 3). From a perusal of these documents and the statements of the prosecution witnesses as well as the defence witnesses. I am satisfied that the oil in question was purchased by the accused-petitioner from M/s Ratan Oil Mills, Jaipur and the same was kept in the shop in the same condition when the Food Inspector inspected the shop of the petitioner. Therefore, the accused-petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Section 19 of the Act of 1954 and he cannot be held responsible for any adulteration of the Til Oil. 9. For the above observations, reliance can be placed on the case Vishnu Avtar v. State 1978 Cr. LJ 1664 and Choudhari Gopal Kishan v. The State 1978 Cr. LJ 1365 . Consequently, I hold that the conviction of the petitioner cannot be maintained. 10. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed. The judgments of both the courts below are set aside, and the accused petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Fine if paid shall be refunded to the petitioner immediately. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled.Revision Allowed. *******