Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)Section 2 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
M. V. Krishnan Nambissan vs State Of Kerala on 18 January, 1966
13. Sandhawalia, C. J. in Lekh Raj v, The State, 1980 Chand LR (Punj & Har) 148, while dealing with a case to which fruit-cream was said to be adulterated, following M. V. Krishnan Nambissan's case 1966 Cri LJ 1347 (SC) (supra) and Hari Shankar v. Corporation of Calcutta 1973 Cri LJ 1264; and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kan-shi Ram 1972 FAC 41, held that fruit-cream not being ice-cream and no standard for fruit-cream having been prescribed, no yard-stick was available by which to judge the purity or otherwise of the product taken from the petitioner therein and in the absence of a prescribed standard, no conviction was possible, both on principle or on precedent.
Smt. Manibai And Anr. vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 August, 1973
14. Mr. Daljit Singh Keer, learned Counsel for the respondent-State, referred us to Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sat Pal Kapoor ; Smt. Manibai v. State of Maharashtra 1973 FAC 349 : 1974 Cri LJ 451 (SC); Sharif Ahmed v. State of U. P. 82 Pun LR 352; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Raj Kumar 1980 () FAC 353 (Delhi); and Rakam Singh v. State (1980) 2 FAC 11 : 1980 Cri LJ 586 (All).
Sharif Ahmed vs State Of U.P on 22 August, 1979
14. Mr. Daljit Singh Keer, learned Counsel for the respondent-State, referred us to Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sat Pal Kapoor ; Smt. Manibai v. State of Maharashtra 1973 FAC 349 : 1974 Cri LJ 451 (SC); Sharif Ahmed v. State of U. P. 82 Pun LR 352; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Raj Kumar 1980 () FAC 353 (Delhi); and Rakam Singh v. State (1980) 2 FAC 11 : 1980 Cri LJ 586 (All).
Section 6 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Lekh Raj And Ors. vs The State on 13 October, 1959
13. Sandhawalia, C. J. in Lekh Raj v, The State, 1980 Chand LR (Punj & Har) 148, while dealing with a case to which fruit-cream was said to be adulterated, following M. V. Krishnan Nambissan's case 1966 Cri LJ 1347 (SC) (supra) and Hari Shankar v. Corporation of Calcutta 1973 Cri LJ 1264; and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kan-shi Ram 1972 FAC 41, held that fruit-cream not being ice-cream and no standard for fruit-cream having been prescribed, no yard-stick was available by which to judge the purity or otherwise of the product taken from the petitioner therein and in the absence of a prescribed standard, no conviction was possible, both on principle or on precedent.
Hari Sankar Banerjee vs Corporation Of Calcutta on 30 April, 1971
13. Sandhawalia, C. J. in Lekh Raj v, The State, 1980 Chand LR (Punj & Har) 148, while dealing with a case to which fruit-cream was said to be adulterated, following M. V. Krishnan Nambissan's case 1966 Cri LJ 1347 (SC) (supra) and Hari Shankar v. Corporation of Calcutta 1973 Cri LJ 1264; and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kan-shi Ram 1972 FAC 41, held that fruit-cream not being ice-cream and no standard for fruit-cream having been prescribed, no yard-stick was available by which to judge the purity or otherwise of the product taken from the petitioner therein and in the absence of a prescribed standard, no conviction was possible, both on principle or on precedent.
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Shri Lekh Raj on 16 July, 1963
14. Mr. Daljit Singh Keer, learned Counsel for the respondent-State, referred us to Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sat Pal Kapoor ; Smt. Manibai v. State of Maharashtra 1973 FAC 349 : 1974 Cri LJ 451 (SC); Sharif Ahmed v. State of U. P. 82 Pun LR 352; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Raj Kumar 1980 () FAC 353 (Delhi); and Rakam Singh v. State (1980) 2 FAC 11 : 1980 Cri LJ 586 (All).
Rakam Singh vs State And Anr. on 10 April, 1979
14. Mr. Daljit Singh Keer, learned Counsel for the respondent-State, referred us to Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sat Pal Kapoor ; Smt. Manibai v. State of Maharashtra 1973 FAC 349 : 1974 Cri LJ 451 (SC); Sharif Ahmed v. State of U. P. 82 Pun LR 352; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Raj Kumar 1980 () FAC 353 (Delhi); and Rakam Singh v. State (1980) 2 FAC 11 : 1980 Cri LJ 586 (All).
1