Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Pale Ram vs State Of Haryana on 2 February, 2005

Suresh vs Navalmal on 23 March, 2010

This Court has heard learned Counsel and has also perused the records and proceedings. The undisputed fact which is required to be noted is that the food article is opined to be adulterated and misbranded by the public analyst on the basis of applying standards prescribed for curry powder under Item No.A.05.21. Thus, applying of standards prescribed for curry powder to 'chat masala' is not approved by Delhi High Court in the case of Pale Ram V. State (supra). In the instant case the order of acquittal is required to be upheld on other grounds also namely :-
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S R Brahmbhatt - Full Document

Da vs Gurvinder Kumar Saluja & Others on 22 January, 2010

Held that there is no reason why an article of food for which no standard has been laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, should be compared with articles of food for which standards have been laid down in order to find out whether there has been a violation of the standard or not. This would result in the Court legislating and laying down the standard of articles of food for which 9 admittedly no standard has been laid down.''
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Da vs Sushil Chaudhary on 26 August, 2009

11. I have heard both the sides at length and have given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, written submissions, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point. The SPP has argued that as the case is well proved and the accused is liable to be convicted. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently argued that at the time of sampling, there was no standard of 5 Mozzarella Cheese and same has been provided in the year 2005. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that the standard of hard cheese should not have been applied on the sample of Mozzarella Cheese. On the other hand, Ld. SPP argued that the sample commodity was hard cheese and the standard of hard cheese was rightly applied on the sample commodity. Ld. Defence counsel has also drawn my attention in respect of the authority reported as ' M.C.D Vs. Ram Kishan, 1985 PFA Cases 192; 1976 PFA Journal 203 titled as Pale Ram Vs. State ; 1980 (II) PFA Cases 49 titled as M/s Brook Bond India Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1