Lawzonline.com 
 
Home|Discussion Forum|Communities|Professional Search|Law Dictionary|Bare Acts|Law Schools|State Bare Acts|Free Judgement Search|Law quotes
Articles  |    Humor    |    Law Digest
 
 
Bare acts search

 
  
Bare acts > Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 > Section 19
 
  


 

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.

(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 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.

(3) 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.

 

 

 

 

 

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

 

 

Quick Links     
      
Family LawsInsurance LawsEnvironmental lawTax LawFDI 
Company LawTelecommunication LawLabour LawsCentral RulesRBI 
Business & Commercial LawsConsumer lawsCorporate lawsCriminal lawsSEBI 
Intellectual Property lawMedia & Press lawsPharma & Medical lawsProperty lawFEMA 
Debt Recovery LawsAmendmentsProfessional lawBanking LawsLegal Links 
      
      
 
 
 
 
 

 
   
 

 

 

Privacy PolicyDisclaimer

Copyright @2010