Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (2.10 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 7 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Laxmi Narain Tandon Etc. Etc on 17 December, 1975
26. The authority relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for accused titled
as Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Laxmi narain Tandan Etc. is not
applicable in the facts of the present case as in the said case, the issue was
whether sale of food provided by a hotelier to a resident customer on a
consolidated charge for room and the other amenities including food and
when no rebate is allowed for any meal which may not be taken, amounted
to sale within the meaning of the Act or not. But, in the present case, the
facts are entirely different as stated above. Hence, this authority is not
applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case.
Section 2 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
State vs Suresh Kumar & Anr. on 15 December, 2010
In view of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, since
there is variations in the report of PA and CFL which is beyond the
CC No. 12/2001
FI Vs. Saleem Etc. Page 18 of 19
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 persons.
Hence, accused no. 1 and 3 are acquitted from the charges leveled against
them.
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.
Gian Chand And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 13 November, 1961
32. In the present case, admittedly the sample was got analyzed by
Director, CFL on 09.04.2001 i.e. after about more than 8 months from the
date of lifting the sample on 09.07.2000. No evidence has been led by the
prosecution that the sample of 'Pasteurized Full Cream Milk' lifted by the
Food Inspector was kept in a refrigerator. Even if it is assumed that the
sample was kept in a refrigerator, still in view of law laid down in the
aforesaid authority cited supra, it cannot be said that the sample of
'Pasteurized Full Cream Milk' remained fit for analysis after 8 months from
the date of lifting the same. Even PWs could not deny in their crossÂ
examination that even if the milk is kept in the AC room or even after
addition of formalin, it can retain its value for a period of 4 months only
and thereafter results would not be reliable. Therefore, there appears to be
substance in the contention of the accused that due to delay in analzing the
sample, the quality of the sample might have been deteriorated and,
therefore, there is variations in the report of Public Analyst and Director,
Central Food Laboratory.
1