Judgment :- This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Revision petitioners/A-3 to A-5 who are charged with offence under Section 7(i) which is punishable under Section 16(I)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, against the order dated 12.1.2004 made in Crl.M.P.No.3340/2003 in C.C.No.154 of 2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Pondicherry dismissing the application for discharge. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- (a) The complainant, a Senior Food Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, Pondicherry on 14.11.2002 at 10.45 a.m., went to M/s.Food World Super Market Ltd., at No.108, Kamaraj Salai, Pondicherry-11 for inspection. After disclosing his identity to the fifth accused, he inspected the premises. During the time of inspection, he purchased 6 bottles of (150 ml.each) Naodis packaged drinking water and 9 bottles of (1000 ml each) Kindly packaged drinking water for analysis. The purpose of taking samples was intimated in Form VI which was acknowledged by the fifth accused and a copy of the same was also given to him. The cost of the samples purchased was also paid and cash receipt was also obtained. (b) The samples were divided into three equal portions i.e., 1500 ml.x2x3 Naodis Packaged drinking water and 1000ml.x3x3 Kinley packaged drinking water. Then all the ample portions were independently fastened, wrapped in wrappers labeled tied with twine and sealed using sealing wax as per the Act and rules in the presence of the 5th accused and witness P.Krishnamorthy, Peon of Food and Drugs Administration, Pondicherry. The local (Health) Authority slips were pasted on the tops of each sample and the fifth accused also signed in the slips partly and the wrapper partly. (c) One of the sealed portions of each of the sample along with a copy of Form VII was sent separately to Public Analyst on 15.11.2002. The sealed portions of the remaining two portions in each sample and the copies of Form VII were sent to the Local (Health) Authority, Pondicherry on the same day for his safe custody as per the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. (d) The report of the Public Analyst dated 14.12.2002 reveals that the sample of Naodis Packaged Drinking Water shows less i.e., 6.28 PH than the minimum requirement of 6.5 to 8.5 PH laid down under clause A.33 in Appendix.B to the PFA Rules 1955 and therefore the same is declared as adulterated. (d) The report of the Public Analyst dated 14.12.2002 reveals that the sample of Naodis Packaged Drinking Water shows less i.e., 6.28 PH than the minimum requirement of 6.5 to 8.5 PH laid down under clause A.33 in Appendix.B to the PFA Rules 1955 and therefore the same is declared as adulterated. The report also revealed that the sample of Kinley Packaged Drinking Water confirms to the standards and declared as genuine. (e) The said complaint was taken on file as C.C.No.154 of 2003 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Pondicherry. Pending the same, the accused 3 to 5 have filed the impugned Crl.M.P.No:3340 of 2003 for discharging them stating that they are only the vendors of the packaged water cans manufactured and distributed by A.1 and A.2 with a warranty as contemplated under the proviso to Section 14 of the Act, the alleged date of purchase by the Food Inspector is within the warranty period, the place of business is with high standards of cleanliness and hence no offence as alleged is made out against these accused. (f) The learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Pondicherry, on a prima facie consideration of the documentary evidence, and on hearing the learned counsel appeared on either side dismissed the discharge petition filed under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., holding that in each and every stage, the dealer of the articles is vicariously liable and the burden is on them to disprove that they have taken due care and caution by taking prescribed steps in order to escape from the criminal liability, otherwise it will be presumed that they shared the common carelessness. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision case has been filed. 3. Admittedly A.1 is the manufacturer. A.2 is the distributor. A.3 is the vendor-company. A.4 is representing A.3 company. A.5 is the Supervisor employed in the A.3 company at Pondicherry branch. The complaint also discloses the A.5 is the Supervisor employed in the A.3 company where the offence is alleged to be committed. Section 17(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act stipulates that where no person has been nominated, every person who at the time of offence was committed was incharge or was responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence. Section 17(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act stipulates that where no person has been nominated, every person who at the time of offence was committed was incharge or was responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence. Rule 12B stipulates that the company may inform the Authority concerned in Form VIII, the name of the person nominated by it under Section to be in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the company and such nomination shall be valid only where the person so nominated has consented in writing and affixed his signature. But, in this case there is no nomination nominating the 4th accused as a nominee under Section 17. The complaint also does not disclose as to how the 4th accused has been impleaded as an accused who is only in-charge of the Human Resources and thus there is no material to proceed against the 4th accused and he is liable to be discharged. 4. It is also contended that they have produced a bill, dated 1.11.2002 for the purchase of the samples of water from the distributor and also it is not the case of the prosecution that the samples were not sold in the same condition as it was purchased from the distributor. Section 14 of the Act provides that a bill or cash memorandum given by any manufacturer or distributor would itself be deemed to be a warranty. Under Section 19(2) of the Act a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of an adulterated article if he proves that he purchased the article of food with the written warranty and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased. AS the sample of water which was analysed was covered by a bill, the defence that is available under Section 19(2) will also be available to Accused 3 to 5. 5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Unikrishnan Vs. AS the sample of water which was analysed was covered by a bill, the defence that is available under Section 19(2) will also be available to Accused 3 to 5. 5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Unikrishnan Vs. Food Inspector, reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 823, wherein it has been held thus:- "3....However, taking into consideration Section 19(2) along with Rule 12-A what is necessary for the accused to show is that he has purchased the article from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form. In the instant case admittedly there was a bill Ex.D.1 which contained the warranty. Further, it is also the admitted case that the tin purchased from the alleged manufacturer was sold to P.W.3 the Food Inspector, Palghat in the same form and in the same condition. Therefore, the requirements of Section 19(2) read with Rule 12-A are satisfied in the instant case for the purpose of the defence taken by the accused." 6. Admittedly, the Revision petitioners are having chain of retail shops/super markets throughout the State and the commodity in question viz., the water cans were purchased and sold in the same condition with the seals put up by the manufacturer (A-1). The product was purchased with a deemed warrantee under the Bill and the same was not tampered with or altered and the product was kept in a good climatic condition. The petitioners are having the bill, dated 1.11.2002 for the purchase of the water cans from the distributor wherein there is a seal affixed by the vendor that quantity and quality are subject to verification and thus the vendor disclaimed for any deviation found later on in the said products as the same are purchased and sold in the same condition. From the Bill produced by the Revision Petitioners and the Bill for purchase of samples water cans, marked by the Food Inspector, it also clear that the product has been kept in the Supermarket only for 14 days. In this respect it is also relevant to point out that normally every manufacturer would indicate in the water cans itself that it will be "best to use before three months from the date of manufacture". In this respect it is also relevant to point out that normally every manufacturer would indicate in the water cans itself that it will be "best to use before three months from the date of manufacture". Admittedly, as seen from Form VI, sample seizure, it is clear that the Naodis packaged drinking water have been manufactured in the month of October 2002 which would only go to show that the product has been kept by the Revision petitioners within the warranty period. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and for the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that no vicarious liability can be fastened with the Revision petitioners for the inferior quality of the packaged water cans supplied by the distributor. Accordingly, the Accused 3 to 5/revision petitioners are entitled to the benefit under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Adulteration Act and they are liable to be discharged. 7. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and Revision Petitioners-Accused 3 to 5 are discharged from the case. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P. is closed.