Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.39 seconds)Pepsico India Holdings Pvt.Ltd vs Food Inspector & Anr on 18 November, 2010
7. In this case, admittedly, the laboratory
for the analysis of food item was not defined and no
validated method of analysis of the food item was
prescribed as mandated under Section 23 (1-A) (ee)
and (hh) of the P.F.A. Act. Therefore, Ext.P12
Crl. R.P. No. 1028 of 2012
-: 5 :-
report of analyst cannot be acted upon to hold that
the food item purchased in this case was adulterated
in view of the decision of the Apex court in
Pepsico India Holdings (supra). Therefore, the
conviction and sentence passed by the courts below
under Sections 2(ia)(c), 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the
P.F.A. Act read with Appendix BA 05.20.01 of the
P.F.A. Rules, cannot be sustained and consequently,
I set aside the same.
N.K.Rasheed vs The Food Inspector on 17 November, 2015
The Division Bench in
Rasheed's case (supra) held that if an analysis is
required to initiate prosecution, there should be
notified laboratory and validated method of analysis
as mandated under Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh) of
the P.F.A. Act for a successful prosecution as
held by the Apex Court in Pepsico Holdings (supra).
Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Gopalakrishnan vs The Excise Inspector on 22 July, 2021
In the decision of this Court in
Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector [2013 (3) KLT 455],
the court relied on the decision of the Supreme
Court in Pepsico India Holdings (supra) and found
that the Public Analyst's report was not admissible
Crl. R.P. No. 1028 of 2012
-: 4 :-
in evidence and accordingly, the Court acquitted the
accused.
1