law: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
  19. Defenses, which
  
  may or may not be allowed in prosecutions under this Act. -
  (1) It shall be no
  
  defense 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 license 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
  1. Subs. by Act 49 of
  
  1964 sec 10 (w.e.f. 1st March. 1965).
  2. Subs. by ibid for
  
  the words "in sub-section (2)" (w.e.f. 1st march, 1965).
  3. Vide the Prevention
  
  of Adulterated of Food, Drugs and Cosmetics  (Uttar Pradesh Amendment)
  
  Act. 1974 (U.P. Act No- 47 of 1975) (w.e f. 15th December, 1975).
  4. Vide the West
  
  Bengal Act XLII of 19'73. published in the Calcutta Gazette, Pt. 111, No. 267,
  
  dated 29th April, 19,14 (w.e.f. 29tti April, 1974).