( 1 ) THE Food Inspector, Bobbili Municipality, bobbili, represented by the Public Prosecutor, high Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, preferred the present Criminal Appeal as against an order of acquittal recorded against a-1 in C. C. No. 220 of 1992 on the file of the additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, bobbili, who is the appellant in Criminal appeal No. 12 of 1997 on the file of the sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. ( 2 ) THE Food Inspector aforesaid, prosecuted A-1 and A-2 in C. C. No. 220 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Judicial magistrate of First Class, Bobbili and the learned Magistrate acquitted A-2, but convicted A-1 on the ground that A-1 is not entitled to the benefit of warranty under section 19 (2) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter in short referred as "act" for the purpose of convenience ). Aggrieved by the said conviction and the sentence imposed by the additional judicial Magistrate of First Class, bobbili, A-1 preferred Criminal Appeal no. 12 of 1997 on the file of the Sessions judge, Vizianagaram and the appellate Court allowed the appeal and recorded an acquittal and aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal is filed. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel on record. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional public prosecutor had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Appellate Court and also the learned Additional judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili and would submit that for the reasons recorded by the learned magistrate, the benefit under Section 19 (2) of the Act cannot be extended in favour of respondent-A-1 and hence, the judgment of the Court of first instance may have to be restored. ( 5 ) ON the contrary, the learned counsel representing the respondent would contend that reasons in detail had been recorded by the Appellate Court and apart from this aspect of the matter, the acquittal recorded as against a-2 by the learned Magistrate had attained finality and in view of the fact that the benefit under Section 19 (2) of the Act is available to respondent-A-1, the acquittal recorded by the appellate Court is well justified. ( 6 ) THE case of the prosecution is that respondent herein-A-1 is doing business in tea dust at Door No. 37-40/1 of Vantharam road, Bobbili and he is the sole proprietor of the said business. ( 6 ) THE case of the prosecution is that respondent herein-A-1 is doing business in tea dust at Door No. 37-40/1 of Vantharam road, Bobbili and he is the sole proprietor of the said business. While so, on 28-04-1990 at about 12. 15 p. m. , while the respondent herein-A-1 was doing the said business of tea dust, P. W. 1 inspected the said tea dust shop and examined 29 Kgs of tea dust in a gunny bag and suspected the same to be adulterated. Hence, in the presence of mediator by name M. V. Ramana Rao, the whole bulk of tea dust was mixed thoroughly and P. W. 1 purchased 375 grams of tea dust at the cot of Rs. 9. 75 ps. of purpose of sending the same to the public analyst for analysis and obtained a receipt from the accused for Rs. 9. 75 ps. Notice in Form 6 was served on A-1 informing that the tea dust so purchased was intended to be sent to public analyst for analysis and divided the same into three equal parts and kept the same in clean dry empty bottles and corked and tied the same and sealed the mouths of the bottles with sealing wax. These bottles were completely wrapped with thick cover paper and labels were affixed thereon mentioning the required particulars, the signatures of the mediators and the accused also were obtained on them. When P. W. 1 questioned A-1 where from he purchased the bulk quantity of tea dust, A-1 informed that he purchased the same from A-2 at vizianagaram and A-1 produced a credit bill also to the said effect. One of the sealed bottle was sent to the public analyst for analysis and two other sealed bottles were handed over to the local health authority for his safe custody. The public analyst, after so analyzing the sample bottle, opined that the sample is not confirming to water extract, ash insoluble in dilute Hydro Chloric Acid and total ash soluble in boiling distilled water and alkalinity of soluble ash and hence, adulterated. The Director and State Food (Health) Authority accorded written permission to prosecuted A-1 and A-2, and hence, A-1 and A-2 were charged with Section 16 (1) (a) (ii), 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (a) of the Act. The report of the Public analyst was marked as ex. The Director and State Food (Health) Authority accorded written permission to prosecuted A-1 and A-2, and hence, A-1 and A-2 were charged with Section 16 (1) (a) (ii), 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (a) of the Act. The report of the Public analyst was marked as ex. P-9 and the report of the Director Central food Laboratory was marked as Ex. P-15. ( 7 ) THE very version of the prosecution is that A-1 purchased the alleged adulterated tea from A-2 under Ex. P-6. A-1 in his examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. stated that he purchased tea dust from A-2 under ex. P-6 credit bill. A-2 also in his 313 Cr. P. C. examination admitted that he sold the stock to A-1 and there is no serious controversy relating to Ex. P-6 the credit bill. Ex. C-1 is the receipt issued by Kranthi Road Transport private Limited, Bobbili, for the purpose of transporting of tea from Vizianagaram to bobbili purchased by A-1 from A-2 under ex. P-6. P. W. 1, the Food Inspector, no doubt, deposed about the details. P. W. 3, the sanitary Labour Working under P. W. 1 at the relevant point of time, in cross-examination admitted that P. W. 1 got opened by A-1 the sealed gunny bag containing the tea dust and then it was mixed and later P. W. 1 purchased 375 grams from the said full bag. P. W. 3 also admitted that the said gunny bag containing tea was in a polythene coverage inside the bag to prevent passage of air or moisture. P. W. 2 is the Junior Assistant and this witness was examined in relation to exs. P-9 and P-15. ( 8 ) AS already referred to supra, the Court of first instance had recorded an acquittal as against A-2 and the same had attained finality. Inasmuch as, A-1 alone was convicted and a-1 carried the matter by way of Criminal appeal No. 12 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Wherein the appeal was allowed. ( 8 ) AS already referred to supra, the Court of first instance had recorded an acquittal as against A-2 and the same had attained finality. Inasmuch as, A-1 alone was convicted and a-1 carried the matter by way of Criminal appeal No. 12 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Wherein the appeal was allowed. ( 9 ) SECTION 14 of the Act dealing with manufacturers, distributors and dealers to give warranty reads as hereunder: manufacturers, distributors and dealers to give warranty.- No (manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in) any article of food shall sell such article to any vendor unless he also gives a warranty in writing in the prescribed form about the nature and quality of such article to the vendor: (Provided that a bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer ordistributorof, or dealer in, such article to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer, disbtributor or dealer under this section.) ( 10 ) IN Chunduri Gopalkrishna Mutiny v. State (Food Inspector, Repalle Municipality, repalle) it was held:"at reading of the proviso to Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration act shows 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 there of shall be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer or distributor or dealer underthat section. It cannot be said that because the cash bill did not give the details as to the nature and quality of the articles sold, it cannot be treated as a warranty". ( 11 ) SECTION 19 of the Act deals with defences, which may or may not be allowed in prosecutions under this Act. Section 19 (2) of the Act reads as hereunder: 19 (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . ( 11 ) SECTION 19 of the Act deals with defences, which may or may not be allowed in prosecutions under this Act. Section 19 (2) of the Act reads as hereunder: 19 (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . 19 (2) A vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves,- (a) that he purchased the article of food- (i) in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof, from a duly licenced manufacturer, distributor or dealer; (ii) in any other case, from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form; and (b) that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it. 19 (3 ). . . . . . . . ( 12 ) THOUGH this specific defence was taken by A-1 even before the Court of first instance, the learned Magistrate negatived the same on the ground that Section 19 (2) of the Act cannot be applied and the same was reversed by the Appellate Court. In The State of Gujarat v. Ratilal Maganlal Shal and others, where the accused a retailer, producing bill containing warranty for purchase of article in question from manufacturer-accused cannot be held guilty for selling adulterated article. ( 13 ) IN the light of the evidence of P. W. 3 and also taking into consideration the stand taken by both A-1 and A-2 when they were examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. and ex. P-6 the credit bill and Ex. C-1 and also the fact that acquittal had been recorded by the court of first instance as against A-2, the findings recorded by the Appellate Court in relation to the applicability of Section 19 (2) of the Act to respondent-A-1 cannot be said to be unjustified. Reasons in detail had been recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, vizianagaram-the Appellate Court. Hence, in the light of Ex. P-6, Ex. C-1, the evidence of P. W. 3 and in view of the clear statutory provisions under Section 14 and 19 (2) of the act, the findings recorded by the Appellate court are in accordance with law and accordingly they are hereby confirmed. Hence, in the light of Ex. P-6, Ex. C-1, the evidence of P. W. 3 and in view of the clear statutory provisions under Section 14 and 19 (2) of the act, the findings recorded by the Appellate court are in accordance with law and accordingly they are hereby confirmed. Hence, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the Appellate Court as against respondent- a-1. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed, being devoid of merits.