Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Da vs Surender Kumar on 22 January, 2010 cites

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Bishan Sarup Etc. on 11 March, 1970

14.Thus the legal impact of a certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory is three-fold. It annuls or replaces the report of the Public Analyst, it gains finality regarding the quality and standard of the food article involved in the case and its becomes irrefutable so far as the facts stated therein are concerned. (emphasis added) A careful reading of the Supreme Court decision reveals that the certificate of the Director, CFL supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and is conclusive as regards the quality and standards of the sample tested. There is no quarrel with this and there can be none. But, this does not enable us to detract from the ratio of the Full Bench decision of this court in the case of MCD vs. Bishan Sarup (supra) that even after such a certificate is issued by the Director, CFL, it would still be open to the accused to establish, if he can do so on concrete grounds, that the sample tested was not a representative one. To this extent, the argument raised by Mr. Sharma that once the certificate of the Director, CFL is obtained, then that is final and conclusive and the Public Analyst's report cannot be looked into at all for any purpose whatsoever, is not quite tenable. If the variation in the two reports is substantial enough, then the Public Analyst's report can certainly be looked into to establish this variation so as to support the contention of the petitioner that the sample was not representative. As indicated above, the Director, CFL who was examined as CW-1 in cross-examination, has clearly stated that if the content of common salt as quantified by the two experts would have a variation of more than- Y.3% then the samples would not be representative.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 315 - H R Khanna - Full Document

Kanshi Ram Jagan Nath And Others vs The State on 28 July, 1961

19. The second counterpart of the same sample was analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta vide report dated 9.4.97 , the result of analysis of second counterpart of the sample commodity was that milk fat was found 5.6% and milk solids not fat was found 7.2% and skimmed milk powder was not found by the Director, CFL. The difference of analysis in respect of milk fat and milk solids not fat in respect of sample of cow's milk by the reports of two analysts are not within acceptable range of .3%. Further, Public Analyst declared the sample non-conforming to standard due to the presence of skimmed milk powder and another analytic data of the sample commodity was as per standard of cow's milk. However, the counterpart of the same sample when examined by the Director, CFL was found adulterated as milk fat and milk solids not fat were found below the prescribed standard but no skimmed milk powder was found by the Director, CFL . These both reports in respect of the counterpart of the same sample are divergent and complainant has failed to show any explanation in respect of variation of more than .3% in the analytic data of the counterpart of the same sample. Thereby relying upon Kashi Nath versus State (supra), I am of the considered view that the sample was not representative due to which divergent reports were given by two experts in respect of counterpart of the same sample.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 566 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ghisa Ram on 23 November, 1966

However, in my view the acquittal of the respondents in the present case in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghisa Ram's case (Supra) cannot be said to be unjustified because the crux of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that prosecution in these kinds of cases should be launched promptly. In that case reference was also made to the opinion of an expert that if a food article, like curd, is kept in a refrigerator and a preservative is added to the sample the total period which may be available for making analysis of that sample without decomposition will be six months. In the present case, the third sample of the paneer was sent to the Central Food Laboratory after the expiry of more that in six months from the date when it was taken from the shop of the respondent no. 1 and there is no explanation forthcoming from the side of the prosecution for that delay. It is admitted by the prosecution that the sample was not kept in refrigerator but was kept in at room temperature till the time from taking of the samples to sending it to CFL.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 437 - Full Document
1