JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - The conviction of the Petitioner u/s 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and of fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months awarded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aska, in 2(c) C.C. No. 4 of 1980 having been confirmed by the second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1983, the Petitioner has moved this Court in revision. 2. The Petitioner has a grocery shop in the name and style of M/s. Ch. Gurumurty Patra and sons, situated at Hundamarai in the district of Ganjam. On 5.11.1979 around 11.45. a.m. suspecting the Atta, Palm Oil and Tit Oil to be adulterated, the Food Inspector of Ganjam took samples thereof, after disclosing his intention and serving a notice as required by law. On analysis, the Til oil and Palm oil samples were found to be adulterated. Prosecution was launched after observing the formalities prescribed. The plea of the Petitioner that he had purchased the articles from a reputed wholesaler and on that warranty, he sold the articles. Hence, he was not liable. Both the courts below, however, rejected the plea. The appellate court especially proceeded on the basis that the bills which were Exts. A to E were inadmissible in evidence, the same being copies. 3. The originals of Exts. A to E were with the Commercial Tax Department. Steps were taken for calling for those documents and those were sent to the court in a sealed cover and were proved on behalf of the defence. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the same on the ground that whereas the originals were kept by the wholeseller those which were granted to the Petitioner were copies. So, they were copies of copies. Hence, those were inadmissible in evidence. The documents which were with Sales Tax Department were not copies but were prepared in the same process and at the same time. Hence Exts. A to E are not copies of copies and are admissible in evidence. That apart no objection was raised on behalf of the prosecution to the admission of those documents at the time those were tendered. Objection at a letter stage was not tenable. Hence Exts. A to E are not copies of copies and are admissible in evidence. That apart no objection was raised on behalf of the prosecution to the admission of those documents at the time those were tendered. Objection at a letter stage was not tenable. Objection as to the mode of proof could be raised only at the time the documents were tendered to be exhibited and not at a later stage. 4. The next question is if the case of the Petitioner was covered by Section 19(2) read with Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Section 19(2) provides that a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food with a written warranty in the prescribed form. Section 14 stipulates that the manufacturer, distributors and dealers are to furnish a warranty in waiting in the prescribed form about the nature and quality of the articles to the vendor. The proviso to the said section is important. It reads as under: Provided that a bill, cash memorandum, or invoice in respect of the sale of any article 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. 5. Exts. A and E are relevant cash memos issued by the distributor to the Petitioner and would satisfy the requirement of the proviso and shall be deemed to be warranty given by the distributor to the Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner has to be absolved from the offence. 6. This question is also covered by decisions of various High Court including one of this Court, In the case of Food Inspector, Berhampur Municipality Vs. P. Mohan Rao and Others it was held that the cash memo issued by the manufacturer to the vendor that at the time of sale, men if it does not contain details as to the nature and quality of the article sold by him, will be deemed to be a warranty in view of the proviso to Section 14 and will be a valid defence for the vendor by virtue of Section 19(2)(a)(ii). 7. In the premises, aforesaid, the revision has to be accepted and the Petitioner is entitled to be acquitted. 7. In the premises, aforesaid, the revision has to be accepted and the Petitioner is entitled to be acquitted. I, therefore, set aside the judgments of the courts below and acquit the Petitioner.