Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)Section 14 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
M/S. Baburally Sardar And Another vs Corporation Of Calcutta on 29 November, 1965
Coming now to the language used in the cash memo it
seems to us that the words "quality is up to the mark" mean
that the quality of the article is up to the standard
required by the Act and the vendee. Quality in this
context would include nature and substance because the name
of the article is given in the cash memo. It must be
remembered that it is not a document drafted by a solicitor;
it is a document using the language of a tradesman. Any
tradesman, when he is assured that the quality of the
article is up to the mark will readily conclude that he is
being assured
868
that the article is not adulterated. The offence, if any,
has been committed by the seller and not the appellant.
There was some argument before as to the difference in
the meaning of the words "nature, substance and quality".
It was pointed out that s. 14 only uses two words "nature
and quality" and not substance. But it is not necessary to
express our views on this point. Reference was made to the
case of Baburally v. Corporation of Calcutta(1). This Court
held that the words on the label and the so called cash memo
in that case did not contain the requisite warranty. But we
are unable to see how that case assists either the appellant
or the State.
1