Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)Tulsiram vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 October, 1984
11. It is very clear that when there are two reports on record, one of the Public Analyst and another of the Central Food Laboratory, then the report of the Central Food Laboratory would necessarily supersede the report of the Public Analyst. It would be relevant to refer to the provisions contained in Section 13 of the said Act. Sub-section (ii) of Section 13 makes it clear that the report of the Central Food Laboratory would supersede the report of the Public Analyst. When this provision is made under the Act itself, it is not necessary for this Court to go into details. Learned Advocate for the respondent has relied upon a decision in the case of Tulsiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1984 (2) PFAC 146. There it has been observed as follows :
The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Section 378 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1