Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.39 seconds)Section 51 in The Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
Section 49 in The Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
Nebh Raj vs State (Delhi Administration) And Anr. on 24 October, 1980
In Nebh Raj Vs. State (Delhi Administration) &
Anr.: (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that,
"oxidation due to exposure to air has the effect of increasing the
free fatty acid content of edible fats and oil cannot be disputed".
In this case, the court has further observed that since the time gap
between taking up the sample and analysis by laboratory was
very high i.e. three months and five days, the free fatty acid
content in the sample might have increased during storage and
accordingly appeal was accepted. In the present case, the sample
was taken on 20.01.2021 and sample was analyzed by Food
Analyst starting from 21.01.2021 till 29.01.2021. The sample
was analyzed by referral food laboratory Ghaziabad, UP on
09.03.2021 to 24.03.2021. Here, as per the facts of this case, the
time gap is not that huge as pointed out by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in this case. Coming to the penalty issued under Chapter
IX of the Act. Section 49 provides that, "while adjudging the
quantum of penalty, the amount of gain or unfair advantage,
wherever quantifiable, made as a result of contravention needs to
be seen". It further provides that amount of loss caused or likely
to be caused to any person as a result of the contravention is also
required to be looked into. The other factors which are required
to be seen is if the contravention is repetitive in nature, if the
FSAT No. 10/2023 M/s.A.P. Organics Ltd. & Anr. v. State through FSO Page 7 of 8
contravention is without his knowledge and any other relevant
factor. It is not a repetitive contravention and is not the plea of
the appellant that it was not in their knowledge. As per criminal
jurisprudence, the penalty should be proportionate and
reasonable to the offence committed. How the Adjudicating
Officer has quantified the penalty on both the appellants, the
impugned order is silent in this regard.
Section 70 in The Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
Babu Lal Sharma vs State Of M.P on 7 July, 2009
"In this context, the order passed by the Single
Bench of this Court in the case of "Babu Vs.
State of MP" [2007(1) MPHT 435] may be
perused in which it was found that if there was
slightly difference in the various readings
between the sample and the standard fixed by
the P.F. Rules, then the sample cannot be said
to be adulterated.
State Of Maharashtra vs Abdul Jabbar Haji on 11 July, 2012
Ld. Counsel for appellant further relied upon the judgment titled
as State Vs. Maharashtra Vs. Abdul Jabbar Haji: (2012 SCC
Online Bom.
Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar ... vs Mohammad Wasim on 31 March, 1992
935) and Nagar Swasthya Adhikari Vs.
Mohammad Wasim: (1992 SCC Online) in this regard.
Ramesh Chandra Sharma vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 20 February, 2023
In support of his submission, Ld. counsel
has relied upon observation made by court in Ramesh Chand
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh: (2014 SCC Online MP 3222).
The relevant para 9 runs as follows:
1