JUDGMENT 1. The instant petition under Sections 397/401 is directed against the order dated 21.1.2004 passed by the Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur framing charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 16(1) (a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Sh.H.K.Bishnoi, Food Inspector, Nagaur visited the petitioner's shop M/s. Chaturbhuj Bhagirath on 9.9.95 and took sample of edible 'Til Oil' of Rajhans Brand. The sample was sent to the Food Laboratory for analysis. It was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the standard of 'Til Oil'. The Food Inspector filed a complaint against the petitioner, proprietor of the firm M/s Chaturbhuj Bhagirath as well as Raju Manwani, Proprietor of M/s Hari Oil Mills. Along with the complaint a memo has also been filed which indicates the sample was taken from the sealed Tin and there is also a bill produced by the petitioner at the time of taking sample which shows that he had purchased the 'Til Oil' from M/s Hari Oil Flour Mills, Jodhpur. After filing of the charge sheet, Raju Manwani, the proprietor of M/s Hari Oil Flour Mills died on 18.12.99. Charges were framed against the petitioner by the impugned order dated 21.1.2004. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that as the sample was taken from the sealed tin, for which a bill was issued by the dealer, there are no chances of petitioner's conviction particularly in view of the provisions of Section 19(2) and Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It will be apt to read Section 19(2) and Section 14 which provide defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecution under this Act. It will be apt to read Section 19(2) and Section 14 which provide defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecution under this Act. It reads as under:- "19(2)-Defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecution under this Act- A vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale or 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 licensed 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." "Section 14. 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 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.)" 4. Thus, Section 19(2) furnishes a defence to the vendor ignorant of the nature, substance and quality of the food sold by him provided he satisfies the requirement of the provisions contained thereunder. 5. Thus, when the person from whom sample of food is taken by the Food Inspector, he can prove the same by filing the warranty in court and even the person who supplied the food article can come and place the evidence. If it is proved that the said person supplied the food article unwarranted, the person from whom the food article is taken is deemed to have not committed any offence. 6. In the instant case the Ex.P/4 Seizure Memo clearly indicates that the sample was taken from the sealed tin carrying the name of M/s Hari Oil and Flour Mills, Jodhpur. The dealer also produced the Bill No.620 dated 22.7.95 whereby he had purchased the said seized article. 6. In the instant case the Ex.P/4 Seizure Memo clearly indicates that the sample was taken from the sealed tin carrying the name of M/s Hari Oil and Flour Mills, Jodhpur. The dealer also produced the Bill No.620 dated 22.7.95 whereby he had purchased the said seized article. The bill has been produced as Ex.D/1 which carries warranty as follows: "I/we hereby certify that food/foods mentioned in this invoice is/are warranted to be the same in nature, substance and quality as that demanded by the vendor." 7. The manufacturer has also been arrayed as an accused. As referred above Raju Manwani, the proprietor of M/s.Hari Oil and Flour Mill has expired on 18.12.99. 8. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner cannot be held guilty for the charges levelled against him under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 21.1.2004 passed by the Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur is quashed and set aside. The proceedings against the petitioner for offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are quashed and set aside.Revision allowed. *******