JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned counsel, for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P. P., Assam. 2. By preferring this revision petition, under Section 401 read with 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment & order, dated 22.01.2007, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, in Criminal Appeal No. 19(1)/2006 whereby the Court had dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and upheld the judgment & order, dated 27.02.2006, passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, in C.R. Case No. 26/2002 by convicting the accused petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 05.11.2001, the Food Inspector, Tinsukia, collected the sample of Double Sher Brand Mustard Oil from the shop of the petitioner situated at Siding Bazar, Tinsukia, which was stored for sale for human consumption as per the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act and the Rules framed thereunder. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner disclosed to the Food Inspector that he had purchased the said Mustard Oil from M/s K.S. Oils Ltd. vide Challan No. RC 1610 dated 20.09.2001 and handed over the photocopy of the challan to him and accordingly, the Food Inspector served notice u/s. 14(A) of the Act, to the said manufacturer. He also sent one part of the sample to the Public Analyst who after examining the sample, forwarded the report stating that the sample does not conform to the standard and thereafter, after requisite sanction, he submitted the offence report against the petitioner as well as the manufacturer. The petitioner challenged the offence report of the Public Analyst and accordingly, the second part of the sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, for re-examination and the Director submitted the report on 12.04.2002 and opined that the sample is found to be adulterated. During trial, the prosecution examined 2 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The petitioner, in his defence, had stated that he had purchased the Mustard Oil from M/s. K. S. Oils Ltd. and stored the same properly and sold the same in the same condition as it was purchased. During trial, the prosecution examined 2 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The petitioner, in his defence, had stated that he had purchased the Mustard Oil from M/s. K. S. Oils Ltd. and stored the same properly and sold the same in the same condition as it was purchased. Accordingly, he claimed protection under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act. The petitioner had also examined 3 witnesses and exhibited relevant documents. After completion of the trial and upon hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, vide judgment & order dated 27.02.2006, rejected the plea of the petitioner in respect of his defence under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act and convicted him u/s. 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, being Crl. A. No. 19(1) of 2006 and the same was dismissed by the said Court of learned Sessions Judge vide its judgment & order dated 22.01.2007 by upholding the judgment & order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court. Challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid findings present revision has been preferred. 4. Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that both the Courts below had failed to appreciate and decide the defence plea of warranty as provided under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, and convicted the petitioner without valid ground and as the legal point was not considered by both the Courts below, the impugned judgment & order are liable to be set aside. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned counsel for the State. 5. In the instant case, the collection of sample and the report of Public Analyst, is not in dispute. At the time of taking sample itself, the accused petitioner claimed that the Mustard Oil, in question, were purchased from M/s. K. S. Oils Ltd. and the same was sent to the petitioner through the railway consignment as per challan vide Ext. ‘ka’ as on 20.09.2001 and the copy of the same was handed over to the Food Inspector. At the time of taking sample itself, the accused petitioner claimed that the Mustard Oil, in question, were purchased from M/s. K. S. Oils Ltd. and the same was sent to the petitioner through the railway consignment as per challan vide Ext. ‘ka’ as on 20.09.2001 and the copy of the same was handed over to the Food Inspector. Accordingly, the Food Inspector served the notice under Section 14(A) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, to the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Manufacturer and also arrayed the accused petitioner as an accused and finally, convicted the accused petitioner as aforesaid. 6. Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, has drawn the attention of this Court towards the evidence of Food Inspector/PW-1 who in his evidence, has stated that he was shown one bill by the accused petitioner stating that he purchased the Mustard Oil from M/s. K. S. Oils Ltd., Industrial Area, Morena(M.P.). On the said Tins, the name of the Manufacturer was written as well as there was level of AGMARK. Ext. Ka is the said photocopy of Challan and the accused No. 2 sent the consignment of Mustard Oil through Railway as on 20.09.2001. The Food Inspector had also admitted that Ext.3 is the original of Ext. ‘3’. Similarly, PW-2, the Office Peon accompanied the PW-1, who was the seizure witness, had also stated that the tin from which the sample was taken and the name of manufacturer was written. Further, he had also admitted that the articles were kept properly in sealed condition by making relevant entry in the Register Ext. ‘kha’. Both these witnesses had admitted about the production of such relevant delivery challan of the Mustard Oil from which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector. 7. Further, in support of the plea that the accused petitioner duly purchased the Mustard Oil from the M/s. K. S. Oils Ltd. and sold one part of the said oil to the PW-1, he has examined himself as DW-1 and exhibited the original challan which was also shown to the PW-1 while in the course of cross-examination. 8. Other two witnesses examined by the accused petitioner before the learned trial Court as DW-2 and DW-3 are the Inspectors of Food and Civil Supply, also testified the fact that the accused petitioner maintained the relevant stock Register i.e. Ext. 8. Other two witnesses examined by the accused petitioner before the learned trial Court as DW-2 and DW-3 are the Inspectors of Food and Civil Supply, also testified the fact that the accused petitioner maintained the relevant stock Register i.e. Ext. ‘kha’ in regular course of business and they had made endorsement to this effect in the said Register vide Ext. Kha(1) and kha(2). The accused petitioner is the owner of M/s. Gopiram Chetram and he used to sell the food articles on commission basis on account of manufacturer. It has also been brought on evidence that the respondent No. 2 sent 1375 litres of AGMARK Mustard Oil of Double Sher Brand vide Challan RC No. 1610 dated 02.09.2001 through railway and he received the consignment as on 01.10.2001. He sold 1239 litres of oil and kept the article properly and sample was taken on 05.11.01 by food inspector. 9. So far as the Section 14(A) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act is concerned, it cast an obligation on the part of the vendor to disclose the name and address of the person from whom he has purchased the article of food in question. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the accused petitioner disclosed the same before the Food Inspector at the time of taking sample. However, the Food Inspector refused to act upon the same and proceeded against the accused petitioner as well as the manufacturer. On scrutiny of the impugned judgment & orders of both the Courts below, it reflects that the learned trial Court refused to accept the document/challan produced by the accused petitioner before the Food Inspector on the ground that it was a photocopy. But such a finding is contrary to the evidence on record which is already discussed above as the PW-1 himself had admitted that the accused petitioner had shown him the original of the challan to him at the time of his inspection and only the copy was furnished to him. On the other hand, the learned appellate Court also refused to accept the said challan on the ground that it was not sent through Railway challan as has been contended but it was sent through vehicle. On the other hand, the learned appellate Court also refused to accept the said challan on the ground that it was not sent through Railway challan as has been contended but it was sent through vehicle. This observation of the learned appellate Court is also on wrong notion because the aforesaid challan bears all the necessary seal and signature of the railway authority about the sending of consignment from said manufacturer to the petitioner’s address and rejection of such document on the part of the appellate Court is not at all valid. Obviously, both the forums have failed to appreciate the valid documents that were produced by the accused petitioner at the very relevant point of time and there was no occasion to disregard the authenticity of the said documents as well as the fact that it was sent by the manufacturer. 10. On the next, the requirement of law under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, is that the vendor must establish that the article of food while in possession, was properly stored and that he had sold in the same condition as he had purchased. In P. Unnikrishnan v. Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality, 1995 (3) supp. SCC 186, while dealing with the provision of Section 19(2) of the Act, has held that on proof that the manufacturer from whom the accused purchased the article, has been duly licensed, depends on the facts of each case. In every case, the accused cannot be expected to verify whether the content of level on the Tin and those in the bill containing the warranty, are correct or not. At that juncture, no knowledge about the non-existence of the firm, could be attributed to the accused and it has been held that where the Court found that the article was in sealed Tins and those were not tampered with, the vendor is entitled to benefit under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act. 11. Section 19(2) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, reads as follows: 2. 11. Section 19(2) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, reads as follows: 2. 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: (a) that he purchased the article of food (i) in a case where the license is prescribed for the sale thereof, from duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer (ii) in any other case, from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer, with a written warranty in a prescribed form and (b) that the article of food while in possession was properly stored and that, he sold it in the same state as he purchased it. The provision of Section 19(2) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, were incorporated to provide protection to small vendors and retailers and the vendor was required further to establish that the article was properly stored and sold by the seller in the same state, he purchased it. 12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in the instant case, has succinctly placed before this Court that the learned Courts below have failed to consider the plea of warranty as envisaged under the aforesaid provision which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 13. In support of the contention that the defence is entitled to protection under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, when defence proved cash memo, gave evidence of proper storage and selling in the same state as purchased, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of this Court as referred below: (1). 1995 supp.(3) SCC 186 P. Unnikrishnan v. Food Inspector Palghat Municipality (2). 1989 (2) GLR 407 Babulal Jodhani v. State of Assam (3). 2004 (1) GLT 17 Muralidhar Gattani v. State of Assam (4). 2005 (2) GLT 373 Chandan Das & ors. v. State of Assam & ors. 14. From what has been discussed above, it is found that the accused petitioner has duly proved all the requirements under Sections 14(A) and 19(2) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, and the defence plea was not considered in proper perspective by both the Courts below. 15. v. State of Assam & ors. 14. From what has been discussed above, it is found that the accused petitioner has duly proved all the requirements under Sections 14(A) and 19(2) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, and the defence plea was not considered in proper perspective by both the Courts below. 15. In view of the evidence and materials placed on record that the article of food/Mustard Oil was purchased by the vendor prior to the few days of the collection of the sample and it was stored properly even at the time of selling and in terms of Section 19(2) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, the vendor/owner of the shop is entitled to protection under the aforesaid provision of law. 16. In the result, revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence entered into by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, are hereby set aside and the accused petitioner is acquitted forthwith. 17. The criminal revision petition accordingly stands disposed of. 18. Send back the LCRs along with a copy of this judgment & order.