Smt. Barfi Devi And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 January, 1997
8. The Public Prosecutor further argued that the vendor and M/s. Santosh Kumar & M/s. Babulal produced the bill for purchase of mustard oil in sealed tin. The petitioner No. 10 is the manufacturer and it is prima facie established that the sealed tin was sold by petitioner No. 10 which was Agmark and this bill must be considered as a warranty for the article to be of the nature and quality which it purport to be at the time of the sale. The learned Public Prosecutor relied upon 1976 Criminal Law Journal 1665 (Madhya Pradesh). The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur v. Satyanarayan & Company, partnership firm &, Ors. There was no warranty in the prescribed form but the samples were bought from out of sealed tins which were bearing the manufacturers label guaranteeing purity. Therefore, the requirement of the proviso to Rule 12-A was clearly fulfilled and the accused did not commit any offence by reason of Section 19(2) of the Act. The sample was taken on 25.3.64. But this case is distinguishable on facts from the present case because there is no averment in the complaint that there was any label on the tin guaranteeing the purity. Moreover, the Rule 12-A as it stands now does not contain any proviso and requires that the warranty must be given in the prescribed form VI-A separately or in the bill, cash memo or label. There is nothing to show that the label on the tin or cash memo contained any warranty in the prescribed form. Therefore, the non-petitioner does not find support from the above cited case.