Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.70 seconds)Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... vs Om Prakash on 28 July, 1969
In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Om Prakash 1970 Cri LJ 1047 (Delhi), the report of the Public Analyst showed the fat contents to be 2.2-8 per cent and non-fatty solid contents as 11.1 per cent. Subsequently, on &n analysis by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory after a lapse of time, fat contents were found to be 3.2, per cent making a total of 14.3 per cent. What was required was 3.5 per cent fat and 8.5 per cent non-fatty solids i.e. total 12 per cent. The court held that the finding about the deficiency in fat content in the sample may have been due to the erroneous analysis made by the Public Analyst. On these facts, the court refused to interfere with the acquittal of the accused.
Ram Labhaya vs Municipal Cororation Of Delhi And Anr on 26 February, 1974
learned Counsel relied on ,a decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Labhaya v. Municipal Conporation of Delhi . In that case, even though the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of taking independent witnesses, it was held that if the Food Inspector had called on the neighbouring shop-keepers to witness the taking of the sample but none was prepared to co-operate, the prosecution would be relieved of its obligation to cite independent witnesses. Same iprineiple will apply in the present case.
Babulal Chhaganlal Barot vs The State Of Gujarat on 11 January, 1967
Further, the Supreme Court referred also-to its decision in Babulal Bargovindas v. State of Gujarat in which it was held that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 10(7) of the amended Act would not vitiate the trial and since the Food Inspector was not in a position of an accomplice, his evidence alone, if believed, can sustain the conviction. In the present case, there is nothing on the basis of which his testimony may be disbelieved. Moreover, in view of the admission of the accused himself that he had sold the sample and had put his signatures on the receipts etc., the argument has no relevance.
Section 2 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation vs Cherukattil Gopalan And Anr on 6 May, 1971
In the case of Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation (supra). item of food was sugar. The analysis showed ash 0.02 per cent total sugar as cane sugar 96.00 per cent and sachharin 14.0 mgs. per 100 flms. While according to the specification, sucrose should not have been less than 99.8 per cent and total ash not more than ,3 per cent. The deficiency thus was in the sucrose content and the sugar was held to be adulterated. Applying that test to the present case, the milk must be held to be adulterated because it was deficient in essential constituents.