(1.) State being aggrieved by an order of acquittal recorded by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dahod on 12-11-1990 in Criminal Case No. 3153 of 1986 wherein the accused were tried for an offence under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act punishable under Sec. 16(1 )(a)(i) of the Act. has preferred this appeal.
(2.) . Pacts leading to the present prosecution as it emerges from the record are as under :
(3.) . In the instant case, it is necessary first to consider the defence of warranty. Initially, the case of the accused No. 1 was that he was dealing on behalf of the accused No. 2, and, therefore, he signed the document Exh. 16 and notice under Rule 12 of the Rules on behalf of the accused No. 2. Cash memo Exh. 17 was issued to the Food Inspector which signed by accused No. I on behalf of accused No. 2. It is in view of this the Food Inspector, on 5-12-1987 addressed a letter Exh. 18 to accused No. 2. It is the case of the accused No. I that he purchased the peppermint, i.e., the article of food, the sample of which was collected by the Food Inspector for analysis, from Vinod Sugar Works, on 15-5-1986, Vide Bill Ex. 81. on payment of Rs. 170.00 at the rate of Rs. 17.00 per 3 kgs., (in all 30 kgs.).