Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)Section 7 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Kanshi Ram Jagan Nath And Others vs The State on 28 July, 1961
Similarly in
CC No.79/98
FI Vs. Rakesh Gupta Page 11 of 14
Kanshi Nath Vs. State 2005(2) FAC 219 even while certain other
contentions of the accused were rejected, the contention concerning the
samples sent to the two test labs not being representative was accepted and
the accused were acquitted.
Section 2 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Bishan Sarup Etc. on 11 March, 1970
In the present case also there are variations more than .3% in
both the reports of experts which shows that a representative sample was
not taken and in view of law laid down in the authorities as above, the
sample in question can not be said to be a representative sample and the
benefit of the same must go in favour of accused.
Calcutta Municipal Corporation vs Pawan K. Saraf And Anr on 13 January, 1999
In this judgment after referring to the
judgment of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Vs. Pawan Kumar Saraf
1999(1) FAC 1 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Bishan Sarup
1972 FAC 273 has observed that, " Therefore, on the facts of the present
case, it can be said that the variation is beyond the acceptable range and
would clearly imply that the samples were not representative. In view of
this finding and in the background of the law which is well settled, no
conviction can be sustained".
State Of Rajasthan And Ors. vs Mahender Kumar Thanvi on 2 March, 1998
Rev. No. 252 of 1978, Pepsico
India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Food Inspector, Criminal Appeal No. 836
of 2010 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, State Vs. Mahender Kumar &
Anr., 2008 (1) JCC 582 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
1