RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City dated 31.3.1999 in Case No. 469/96 rejecting the application of the petitioner for discharging him in view of the warranty by the manufacturer printed on, the packing of the commodity under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 inter alia on the ground that he was merely a purchaser from the manufacturer and the commodity was purchased from him by the food Inspector, in sealed container which carried with it a warranty from the manufacturer/vendor in the prescribed form which protects him under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Such printed warranty discharged him from burden of proving the existence of such warranty. Therefore, he should be discharged.
(2.) THE learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate relying on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pawan Kumar Chopra and Anr. 1908 (2) FAC 202 has rejected this prayer. Hence this petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the warranty as envisaged under Section 14 of the Act of 1954 is a complete defence of the petitioner who is not the manufacturer but purchaser from the manufacturer of the commodity. Once the warranty is proved from the sealed cover itself, he is not liable to be prosecuted and trial may proceed against rest of the accused persons. He placed reliance on following passage from a Supreme Court decision in S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1982(1) FAC 214: Before parting with the case, we would like to advert to one aspect. It is common ground that the honey in question was sold in a sealed container bearing the manufacturer's warranty as to quality as required under Rule 12 -A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. That being so, the learned Magistrate shall first determine whether or not 'the appellant was protected under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his connection further urged that the fact of warranty given by the vendor manufacturer has been admitted in the complaint itself.;