Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)Gian Chand And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 13 November, 1961
Ld defence counsel argued another point that there was a gap
of 8 months till when appellant accused exercised his right U/s 13 (2) PFA
Act and the sample milk would not have preserved its constituents even if
preservative was added beyond a certain period and on that point ld
counsel had relied on judgment by Delhi High Court in a case Gian Chand
Vs State wherein reliance was placed on another Supreme Court judgment
in MCD Vs Ghisa Ram. It was found that the sample curd in the reported
judgment even if preservative had been added could not have remained fit
for analysis after more than six months even if it was kept in refrigerator.
There being no evidence to that effect, it was to be presumed that it was
not kept in refrigerator and therefore decomposition should have taken
place earlier. Accordingly it was held that the court was inclined to agree
with the submissions of ld counsel that genuineness of the sample which
had been produced before trial court as the counter sample was not
beyond doubt.
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ghisa Ram on 23 November, 1966
Ld defence counsel argued another point that there was a gap
of 8 months till when appellant accused exercised his right U/s 13 (2) PFA
Act and the sample milk would not have preserved its constituents even if
preservative was added beyond a certain period and on that point ld
counsel had relied on judgment by Delhi High Court in a case Gian Chand
Vs State wherein reliance was placed on another Supreme Court judgment
in MCD Vs Ghisa Ram. It was found that the sample curd in the reported
judgment even if preservative had been added could not have remained fit
for analysis after more than six months even if it was kept in refrigerator.
There being no evidence to that effect, it was to be presumed that it was
not kept in refrigerator and therefore decomposition should have taken
place earlier. Accordingly it was held that the court was inclined to agree
with the submissions of ld counsel that genuineness of the sample which
had been produced before trial court as the counter sample was not
beyond doubt.
The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Section 20 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Laxmi Narain Tandon Etc. Etc on 17 December, 1975
Arguments that sample could not have been drawn from tanker
which was in a process of transportation as situation would not be covered
by Section 10 of the Act, Ld MM found the contention unacceptable. Ld
MM relied upon statement given by accused voluntarily when sample was
drawn that he was the owner of the double toned milk in tanker and was
carrying it for sale. Even otherwise sub clause 2 of Section 10 provides for
category of person from whom food sample may be drawn and it includes
a person who is in the course of conveying, delivering or preparing to
deliver such article to a purchaser or consignee. Situation covers the
accused in present like case when he is carrying milk in a tanker, may be it
was to be delivered to a purchaser or a consignee. Once the milk was
meant for sale then there was no prohibition in drawing sample from the
tanker. Reliance on Supreme Court judgment in the case MCD Vs Laxmi
Narain Tandon 1975 PFA 444 is not strictly attracted in the facts situation
of the present case. In the reported judgment food being provided by
Hotelier to resident customers on a consolidated charge for a room
amenities including food would not mean the food article amounted to sale
within the meaning of the Act, situation in the case is different.
Kanshi Ram Jagan Nath And Others vs The State on 28 July, 1961
Variation in milk fat could suggest a non homogenized sample. Ld
defence counsel pointed out that standard for a double toned milk as
regards milk fat was 1.5 % and thereby in both the reports milk fat contents
were above the minimum prescribed. It is only the milk solids not fat that
percentage fell a little below the minimum prescribed 9%. Ld MM relied
upon High Court judgment in a case ( Kashi Nath Vs State 2005 (2) FAC
219 ) on the point that where variation in two reports was less than .3% the
Criminal Appeal No. 06/2010 page No.1 of page No.7
6
sample could be said and considered to be not a representative one. The
judgment may not be attracted in the present facts situation where we do
not have a satisfactory evidence that the product was duly homogenized
before the sample was drawn and that could be the reason that variation of
.2 % appears in the milk fat contents of two samples.
1