# RANGANATHA REDDIAR v. THE STATE OF. KERALA Aug!'SI 14, 1969

- **Citation:** [1970] 1 S.C.R. 864
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967-07-21
- **Case number:** Criminal App~al No. 141 of 1967
- **Bench:** S. M. S!Kri, G. K. Mitter, P. Jaganmohan Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ranganatha-reddiar-v-the-state-of-kerala-aug-si-14-1969-4716
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

B
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, s. 14--The Prevention of
Food Adulteratio,{ Rules, 1954 R. ·12-A, proviw-Scope of-Cash memoCOl'ering food item found adulterated-Containing wording "quality upto
the mark"-If sufficient warranty in terms of proviso.
It was alleged in a complaint against the· appellant, who 'held a wholesaler's licence, that be bad stored and sold compounded asafoetida which
C
was found to have been adulterated. It was the appellant's case that be
bad purchased the asafoetida from a distributor in enclosed packets and
that the cash memo furnished to him by the distributor stated inter alia
that "qu:ility is upto the maik". It was therefore Contended on his behalf
that the cas,~ fell within the proviso-- td Rule 12-A of the ~revention of Food
Adulteration Rules, 1955, framed under Act 37 of 1954 in that no warranty
in a prescrib~d form was necessary as the cash memo contained a warranty
that the food cOntaine,d in the package was the same in nature. substance
D
and quality as demanded by the appellant.
Although the Trial Court upheld the appellant's contention, the High
Court on appeal jleld to the contrary.
In th~ appeal to this Court it was respondent's contention that Jhe
wai'ranty n1ust 'Staie expressly that the food mentioned in the cash memo
was th~ san1e in nature, substance and quality as demanded by the vendor
E
and if these \Vords did not exist in the cash memo, the proviso would not
apply.
HBLD : Allowing the appeal :
The 'IA'b~ds "quality is upto the mark" in the cash memo meant that
the qua1itr of the article was upto the standard required by the Act and
the vendee.
Qua1ity in this context \vould include nature ~d substance
F
because the name of the article was
given in the cash memo. The cash
memo \\'3S the document using the language of. a tradesman. Any tradesman who 1vas assured that the quality of the article was upto the mark
would readily conclude that he was oeing assured the article was not
adulter3ted. [867 HJ
When the proviso to Rule 12-A expressly says that no warranty in
the pr~ribed form shall be necessary in certain eventualities, it would be
G
re-writing the rule to hold that neverthelesS the same things must exist
in the label or the cash memo. If the W?rds used in the warranty can
reason:ibl}' be interp·reted to have the -same ,effect as certifying "the nature,
substanc~ and quality'" df an article of foop, the warranty will fall within
the oronso. [867 DJ
\
·Ci<I~!lNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Criminal App~al No.
141 of 1967.
H
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 21, 1967 of
the Kerala High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1966.
K. R, REDDIAR v. KERALA (Sikri, /.)
865
A
A. S. R. Chari, A. S. Nambiar and K. R. Nambiar, for the
B
c
D
E
appellant.
V. K. Krishna Menon and M. R. K. Pillai, for the respondent.

## Text

864
RANGANATHA REDDIAR
v.
THE STATE OF. KERALA
Aug!'SI 14, 1969
A
[S. M. S!KRI, G. K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.]
B
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, s. 14--The Prevention of
Food Adulteratio,{ Rules, 1954 R. ·12-A, proviw-Scope of-Cash memoCOl'ering food item found adulterated-Containing wording "quality upto
the mark"-If sufficient warranty in terms of proviso.
It was alleged in a complaint against the· appellant, who 'held a wholesaler's licence, that be bad stored and sold compounded asafoetida which
C
was found to have been adulterated. It was the appellant's case that be
bad purchased the asafoetida from a distributor in enclosed packets and
that the cash memo furnished to him by the distributor stated inter alia
that "qu:ility is upto the maik". It was therefore Contended on his behalf
that the cas,~ fell within the proviso-- td Rule 12-A of the ~revention of Food
Adulteration Rules, 1955, framed under Act 37 of 1954 in that no warranty
in a prescrib~d form was necessary as the cash memo contained a warranty
that the food cOntaine,d in the package was the same in nature. substance
D
and quality as demanded by the appellant.
Although the Trial Court upheld the appellant's contention, the High
Court on appeal jleld to the contrary.
In th~ appeal to this Court it was respondent's contention that Jhe
wai'ranty n1ust 'Staie expressly that the food mentioned in the cash memo
was th~ san1e in nature, substance and quality as demanded by the vendor
E
and if these \Vords did not exist in the cash memo, the proviso would not
apply.
HBLD : Allowing the appeal :
The 'IA'b~ds "quality is upto the mark" in the cash memo meant that
the qua1itr of the article was upto the standard required by the Act and
the vendee.
Qua1ity in this context \vould include nature ~d substance
F
because the name of the article was
given in the cash memo. The cash
memo \\'3S the document using the language of. a tradesman. Any tradesman who 1vas assured that the quality of the article was upto the mark
would readily conclude that he was oeing assured the article was not
adulter3ted. [867 HJ
When the proviso to Rule 12-A expressly says that no warranty in
the pr~ribed form shall be necessary in certain eventualities, it would be
G
re-writing the rule to hold that neverthelesS the same things must exist
in the label or the cash memo. If the W?rds used in the warranty can
reason:ibl}' be interp·reted to have the -same ,effect as certifying "the nature,
substanc~ and quality'" df an article of foop, the warranty will fall within
the oronso. [867 DJ
\
·Ci<I~!lNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Criminal App~al No.
141 of 1967.
H
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 21, 1967 of
the Kerala High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1966.
K. R, REDDIAR v. KERALA (Sikri, /.)
865
A
A. S. R. Chari, A. S. Nambiar and K. R. Nambiar, for the
B
c
D
E
appellant.
V. K. Krishna Menon and M. R. K. Pillai, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .
Sikri, J. In this appeal by certificate the only point that arises
is whether the cash memo, Ex. Dl, issued by the seller to the
appellant contains a warranty within r. 12A of the rules framed
under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act 37
of 1954), hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The Magistrate,
who tried the cOillplaint, held that Ex. Dl was a proper warranty
and it fell within the proviso to r. 12A. The High Court on
appeal held to the contrary.
·
The relevant facts are these. The appellant is a Rice &
General Merchant and holds a
wholesaler's licence. It was
alleged in the complaint that the appellant had stored and exposed for sale and sold compounded asafoetida which was found
to have been adulterated by wheat starch and tapioca starch and
that non-permi,tted orange coaltar dye was present.
The report
of the Public Analyst to Government, Trivandrum, was relied on
in this connection.
The appellant appeared as a witness and he stated that he
purchased asafoetida from L. T. Alakesan and Brothers, received
it in enclosed pac](,ets in bags and sold it in bags.
He received
invoice which reads as follows :
'·Lt. T. Alhakesan & Brothers,
Asafoetida Merchants, Veliamadom
Sri K .. Ranganatha Reddicr, Kottarakara
F
Rate : 6.00
G
Particulars : C.S.T. Rs. 2. One case of Asafoetida
Misky bag 30 Rs.
180/-
The quality is up to the mark. C.S.T. Rs.
3.60
Rupees one hundred and eighty three and
N .P. sixty only.
Rs. 183.60
One case (ld) (Id) 1/4/64 (Sd.) 147542 18/5/64"
He further stated ·that "it is written on the packet as ''Exira·
H
Superior" in EngliSh and as "Compounded misky full of quality
and flavour" in Tamil."
The relevant sfatutory provisions are :
8 66
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] l S.CR.
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
"S. 14. Manufacturers, distributors and dealers
to
give warranty.-
No manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article
of food shall sell such article lo any vendor unless he
also gives a warranty in writing in the prescribed form
about the nature and quality of such
article to
the
vendor."
"S. 19(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 proved-
( a) that he purchased the article of food-
(i) in a case where a licence is prescribed for
the sale thereof.
from a
duly
licensed
manufacturer, distributor or dealer,
(ii) in any other ca.se, from any manufacturer,
distributor or dealer, with a written warranty· in the prescribed form; and
(b) that the article of food while in his possession
was properly stored and
that he sold it in the
same state as he purchased it."
The Prere111io11 of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955
"Ruic 12-A. Warrallty-Evcry trader
selling
an
article of food to a vendor shall, if the vendor so requires, deliver to the vendor a warranty in Form VI-A :
Provided that no warranty in such form
shall be
necessary if the label on the article of food or the cash
memo delivered by the trader 10 the vendor in respect
of that article contains a warranty certifying that the
food contained in the
pack:ig.~ or container or mentioned in the cash memo is the same in
nature, substance and quality as demanded by the vendor.
Explanation.-Thc term 'trader' shall mean an importer, manufacturer, wholesale dealer or an authorised
agent of such importer.
manufacturer or
wholesale
dealer."
We arc 1101 concerned with the question whether rule l 2A is
contrary to the provisions of the Act.
We take ii that it is valid
and if the appellant's cJse falls within the proviso he is entitled
to acquittal.
·'
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
K. R. REDDJAR v. KERALA (Sikri, J.)
867
It was contended before us on behalf of the respondent that
the warranty must state expressly that the food mentioned in the
cash memo was the same in nature, substance and quality as
demanded by the vendor, and if these words did not exist in the
cash memo, the proviso would not apply. We are unable to accede to this contention. It may be that if the warranty is not
contained in a lab~! or cash memo the warranty must be in
Form VI·A, which uses these words :
"We bereby certify that the food/foods mentioned
in this invbice is/ are warranted to be the
same in
nature, substance and quality as that demanded by the
vendor.'
1
But we do not decide this as it is not necessary to do so. In our
view when the . proviso expressly says that no warranty in such
form shall be n~cessary in certain eventualities it would be rewriting the rule to hold that nevertheless the same things must exist
in the label or the cash memo. It seems to us that if the words
in the warranty can reasonably be interpreted to have the same
effect as certifying "the naturs:, substance and quality" of an
article of food, the warranty Wifl fall within the proviso. The Act
is of wide application and millions of small traders have to comply
with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The learned counsel for the State says that if they are not able to comply with the
provisions they should stop carrying on their trade. But if the
object underlying the Act can be achieved, without disorganising
the trade, by givihg a reasonable interpretation to Rule 12A, it
is cur duty to do so.
A number of English cases were referred to us, but we do not
find it necessary to refer to them as they interpret the Sale of
Food & Drugs Act, 1875, and the later Food & Drugs Act, 1955.
The language of the relevant sections dealing with defences is
different and warranties employing different words have been
interpreted. But they do at least show this that trade can be
carried on and th~ o b_iect of the Act is not defeated even if
traders use ordinary language of the trade or popular language
in warranties.
Coming now to the language used in the cash memo ii seems
to us that the words "quality is up to the mark" mean that the
quality of the ~rticle 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
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[l 970] I S.C.R.
that the article is not adulterated.
The offence, if any,
has
been committl>...d by the seller and not the appellant.
There wa~ 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"
A
and not substance.
But it is not necessary to express our views
B
on this point.
Reforcnce was made to the case of Babura//y '"
Corporation of Calcutta(').
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.
In the result the appeal is allowed,
judgment of the High
c
Court set aside and that of the Magistrate restored. The appellant's bail bond shall be treated as cancelled.
R.K.P.S.
Appeal allowed.
II) (1966] 2 S.C.R. 815.