Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Section 11 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
State Of Gujarat vs Shantaben Wife Of Bhol Dhulabhai on 6 August, 1963
In that connection, he relied upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat v. Shantaben, wherein the learned Judge observed:
The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Mary Lazrado vs State Of Mysore And Anr. on 28 June, 1965
The form No. III simply requires a statement to the effect that the sample was properly sealed and fastened and that the seal was intact and unbroken. The omission, therefore, in the report about comparison is not of any vital importance. It would be legitimate to raise a presumption under section 114 of the Evidence Act that when both the samples and the specimen were sent, the seals of the two articles were compared. Mr. Karlekar relied on the decision of the Mysore High Court in Mary Lazrado v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 Mys 244. In that case the learned Judge relied upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court. He observed:
M. V. Krishnan Nambissan vs State Of Kerala on 18 January, 1966
Mr. Karlekar contended that ergot is a kind of fungus and therefore, unless the Court finds that the damage exceeds 5% by weight, it cannot be said that the Bajari was not of the requisite standard. This argument pre-supposes that the prosecution is based on the supposition that the Bajari sold was not of the requisite standard. Mr. Karlekar relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in , M. V. Krishnan v. State of Kerala. In that case the prosecution related to butter milk and their Lordships observed:-
Section 2 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
1