Bare Acts  | Legal Resources  | Lawyer Locater  | Articles  | Legal Dictionary  | Download Ticker  | Subscription   Home   |   E-Journal  |  Sign-In  | Contact Us  | Disclaimers

Supreme Court of India
 Search Tips
Criminal Law
Bare Acts
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954
Section 1-25
Section 1
Section 2
Section 2-A
Section 3
Section 3-A
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
Section 7
Section 8
Section 9
Section 10
Section 11
Section 12
Section 13
Section 14
Section 14-A
Section 15
Section 16
Section 16-A
Section 17
Section 18
Section 19
Section 20
Section 20-A
Section 20-AA
Section 21
Section 22
Section 22-A
Section 23
Section 24
Section 25
Section 19- Defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecutions under this Act

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.
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 proves-

(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 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 properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it.
Any person by whom a warranty as is referred to (in section 14) is alleged to have been given shall be entitled to appear at the hearing and give evidence.
@2013 Indian law