Judgment :- The petitioner was the 1st accused in C.C. No 202 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court. Tellicherry. He had been found guilty under S.16(1)(a)(i) read with S.7(1) and 2(ia)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 5 Appendix B.A. 05.05.01 of the P.F.A Rules. convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The Sessions Judge. Tellicherry. in Crl. Appeal No. 13 of 1988 confirmed the conviction and sentence which is under challenge in this revision. The allegation was that he sold adulterated chilly powder. to the Food Inspector of Kuthuparamba circle. on 15-3-1983 at 3.30 p.m. 2. Another accused was prosecuted along with the petitioner who reportedly. was the manufacturer of the adulterated chilly powder. The Magistrate found him guilty under S.15(1)(a)(i) and also under S.16(1C) read with 14 of the P.F.A. Act. convicted and sentenced him. In Crl. Appeal No. 19 of 1988. the Sessions Judge. Tellicherry acquitted him. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below erred to deny the petitioner the benefit of S.19(2) of the Act. His case was not properly considered in the light of the evidence. The law on the question was mis-interpreted and mis-applied. The conviction and sentence it was urged. are illegal. 4. Before we consider the contentions raised by the petitioner. a few facts have to be mentioned. Before the trial court the counsel who defended the petitioner also defended the 2nd accused. It was stated that petitioner had handed over the bill of purchase to the counsel who promised to produce it in court but. did not do so reportedly. on the ground that the interest of the 2nd accused for whom also he appeared would be adversely affected. Indeed. his case under S.19(2) of the Act was reportedly not canvassed and therefore he was convicted and sentenced. When he approached his counsel he was alleged to have assured him that he would help him in the appeal. verdict in which also went against him. In the wake of the adverse result in appeal too. when petitioner approached his counsel. he was stated to have expressed his helplessness. A complaint against him was filed before the Bar Council which disapproved his conduct. 5. verdict in which also went against him. In the wake of the adverse result in appeal too. when petitioner approached his counsel. he was stated to have expressed his helplessness. A complaint against him was filed before the Bar Council which disapproved his conduct. 5. It was the petitioner's case that he purchased a certain quantity of chilly powder from the 2nd accused. from out of which a sample was collected by the Food Inspector for analysis. The purchase from the 2nd accused was as per a bill which was not produced allegedly because some foul play was committed by his counsel. Ext. P25 is the label which was found on the sample packets of chilly powder on which the petitioner relied in support of his defence under S.19(2) of the Act. The question to be decided is whether Ext. P25 is a label warranty sufficient to sustain his defence. o. Rule 32 of the Act provides for the contents of the label. "It shall be specified on every label; (a) the name. trade name or description of food contained in the package. (b) the name and business address of the manufacturer or importer or vendor or packer " Ext. P25 undoubtedly. satisfied the requirements of Rule 32. Rule 12-A which deals with warranty says: "Every manufacturer. distributor or dealer selling an article of food to a vendor shall give either separately or in the bill. cash memo or label; a warranty in Form VI-A". Form VI-A is the form of warranty. The warranty under rule 12-A shall be in that form. But. it is not necessary that a label should be in that form. A label could not be in Form VI-A in all respects. If it is label coming under Rule 32 and contained the certificate as in Form VI-A. it would operate as a warranty under Rule 12-A. 7. The Sessions Judge observed: "a bill. cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer or distributor or dealer of any such article to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer. distributor or dealer under this section. The label found on the packet is not one of the documents referred to in the proviso which shall be a substitute for a written warranty. distributor or dealer under this section. The label found on the packet is not one of the documents referred to in the proviso which shall be a substitute for a written warranty. Unless it is specifically stated in S.14 that a label found on the cover shall also be deemed to be a warranty given by the manufacturer. distributor or dealer. it is not open to the 1st accused to contend that the label which is found in the packet has to be treated as a warranty so as to enable him to invoke the protection available u/S.19(2) of the Act". But. he forgot to notice that the proviso only explained and expanded the scope of the section and that non-mention of the label in it. is not of any consequence. The observations above quoted seem to me to be based upon a mis-conception of the legal provision. Ext. P25 operated as a warranty and as such it should be held that petitioner was protected. He was entitled to the benefit of S.19 (2) of the Act. The findings to the contrary are unsustainable. I set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and allow the revision.