Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.28 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 7 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Calcutta Municipal Corporation vs Pawan K. Saraf And Anr on 13 January, 1999
In this judgment after referring to the judgment of Calcutta Municipal
Corporation Vs. Pawan Kumar Saraf 1999(1) FAC 1 and Municipal
Corporation of Delhi Vs. Bishan Sarup 1972 FAC 273, the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court has observed that, "Therefore, on the facts of the present case, it
can be said that the variation is beyond the acceptable range and would clearly
imply that the samples were not representative. In view of this finding and in
the background of the law which is well settled, no conviction can be
sustained".
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Bishan Sarup Etc. on 11 March, 1970
In this judgment after referring to the judgment of Calcutta Municipal
Corporation Vs. Pawan Kumar Saraf 1999(1) FAC 1 and Municipal
Corporation of Delhi Vs. Bishan Sarup 1972 FAC 273, the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court has observed that, "Therefore, on the facts of the present case, it
can be said that the variation is beyond the acceptable range and would clearly
imply that the samples were not representative. In view of this finding and in
the background of the law which is well settled, no conviction can be
sustained".
Shri Niranjan Kumar Agarwala vs The State Of Assam on 16 February, 2012
30. As such, accused no. 1 was not required to show the bill of
purchase Mark DA at the time of sample proceedings in view of law laid down
in the aforesaid authority and he can produce the same during his evidence,
which the accused no. 1 has done in the present case.
State (Delhi Administration) vs Ram Singh on 21 May, 1990
Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Ram Singh & Ors. 2009 (1) FAC 371.
State vs Suresh Kumar & Anr. on 15 December, 2010
In view of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, since
there are variations in the report of Public Analyst (PA) and Director, Central
Food Laboratory, which are beyond the permissible limit of .3 %, it appears that
sample was not representative one and therefore, benefit of doubt is liable to be
given to the accused. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to the accused
no. 1 and he is also acquitted of the charges leveled against him.
State vs Mahender Kumar And Ors. on 24 January, 2008
Similarly in State Vs. Mahender Kumar & Ors. (Supra) has been
observed that, " While both reports have concurred in the conclusion that the
sample was adulterated, the variation in the material parameters in the sample
sent to each of them is not insignificant. In the sample sent to the Public Analyst
the ash content is 4.04% whereas in the sample sent to the CFTRI it is 6%. The
ash insoluble in dilute HCL is 2.55% in the sample sent to the Public Analyst
whereas it is 1.95% in the sample sent to the CFTRI. The lead content is Nil in the
first and 5.4 ppm in the second. These variations are more than y.3% which is
stated to be the permissible limit. It cannot therefore be said that identical
CC No. 233/02
DA Vs. Yogender Lal Sood Page 19 of 20
representatives samples were sent to both the Public Analyst as well as the
CFTRI".
State vs Rama Rattan Malhotra on 3 August, 2012
In State Vs. Rama Rattan Malhotra 2012 (2) FAC
398 after relying upon various judgments titled as Kanshi Nath Vs. State
CC No. 233/02
DA Vs. Yogender Lal Sood Page 18 of 20
2005(2) FAC 219 and State Vs. Mahender Kumar & Ors, 2008 (1) FAC 177,
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that, "Since in the present case,
variation in public analyst and CFL certificates is more than .3%, it would
clearly imply that samples in the present case were not representative.".