Topic: Section 19. Defences, which may or may not be allowed in prosecutions

Section 19. Defences, which may or may not be allowed in prosecutions under this Act

(1) It shall be no defence in a prosecution for an offence pertaining to the sale of any Adulterated or misbranded article of food to allege merely that the vendor was ignorant of the nature, substance or quality of the food sold by him or that the purchaser having purchased any article for analysis was not prejudiced by the sale.

1(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 lie proves-,

(a) That he purchased the article of- food--

(i) In a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof, from a daily licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer;

(ii) In any other case, 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 property stored and That he sold it in the same State as he purchased it.]

(3) Any person by whom a warranty as is referred to, 2[in Sec. 14] is alleged to have been given shall be entitled to appear at the hearing and give evidence.

STATE AMENDMENTS

Uttar Pradesh. –After Sec. 19, the Allowing section shall be inserted. namely:

“19A.Burden of proof. --. When any article intended for food is seized from any person under sub-section (4) of ‘Sec I 0 by a Food inspector in the reasonable belief that the same is adulterated or misbranded, the burden of proving that Such article intended for food is not adulterated or. Misbranded shall be on the person from whose possess such article intended for food was seized. “3

West Bengal. -After Sec. 19. The, following section shall be inserted, namely: Burden-of–proof. -When any article intended for food is seized from any person in the reasonable belief that the same is adulterated or misbranded the burden of proving that such article intended for _food is not adulterated or misbranded shall be on the person from whose possession such article intended for food was seized.4