By this appeal the appellant (State of Assam) seeks to challenge the judgment dated 19.5.1985 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sibsagar in CR Case No. 415 of 1981 acquitting the two respondents from the charge under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Heard Mr.Sk, Noor Mahammed, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. BM Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. It appears from record of the learned trial Court that respondents were prosecuted in CR Case No. 4J5 of 1984 on a charge under section 7/16 of the Act for selling adulterated mustard oil from their shop premises. Case of the respondents before the trial Court was that they purchased the mustard oil from a manufacturer in sealed tins. For that purpose the respondents obtained cash memos from the manufacturer as mentioned therein. 4. Mr. Choudhury,learned counsel for the respondents drew my attention to section 14 of the Act. Proviso to section 14 says that a bill, cash memo or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer or distributor, 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. Mr. Choudhury submits that in view of the proviso to section 14 of the Act, there cannot be any doubt that the cash memo which the respondents had produced before .the learned trial Court is in fact a warranty and, as such, action of the respondents are protected ,under section 19 of the Act. Section 19 (2), inter alia, 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 if he proves that he purchased article of food from distributor/ manufacturer/dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form. Therefore case of the respondents is that they having produced the cash memo before the learned trial Court and that cash memo being a warranty within the meaning of proviso to section 14 of the Act, there cannot be any doubt that action of the respondents are protected by section 19 (2) thereof and, as such they have not committed any offence whatsoever. 5. I fully agree with the contention of Mr. Choudhury. Mr. 5. I fully agree with the contention of Mr. Choudhury. Mr. Noor Mahammed learned Public Prosecutor also admits this position of la wand that trial Court did not commit any error whatsoever in extending the benefit under section 19 of the Act to the respondents. 6. In view of the aforesaid legal position and facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal and accordingly this appeal is dismissed.