Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.47 seconds)Section 7 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Nagar Mahapalika vs Panna Lal on 7 July, 1964
24. with the greatest respect we are in complete agreement with the above statement of law. We therefore, hold that the view of the learned single Judge of this Court in Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasiv.Panna Lal (1965 (1) Cri LJ 537) (All) (supra) that one of the essential ingredients of sale is sale for human consumption or use is not correct.
P. Govinda Pillai vs V.G.N. Padmanabha Pillai And Ors. on 6 November, 1964
In Govinda Pillai's case (supra) it was held
In any view of the matter there can be little doubt that the rule prohibits the possession of Kesari Dal for the purpose of sale, under any description whatsoever --the evidence that some of the accused used to write, "C. F." to mean cattle food, in their cash bills for the sale of the Dal is, therefore, of no account-- irrespective of whether or not the sale is for human consumption or use.
Section 11 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Dhirajlal Valji Kotak vs Ramchandra Janglaji Gujar And Anr. on 26 February, 1969
In any view of the matter there can be little doubt that the rule prohibits the possession of Kesari Dal for the purpose of sale irrespective of whether or not the sale is for human consumption or use." The same view was taken in the other Full Bench case of Dhirajlal Valji v. Ram Chandra Janglaji 1970 Cri LJ 1062 (Bom) (FB)) (supra). After analysing the definition of sale, their Lordships held as follows :
Shah Ashu Jaiwant vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 August, 1975
29. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the judgment and the law as found by the Full Bench in Dhiraj Lal v. Ram Chandra 1970 Cri LJ 1062 (Bom) (FB) (supra) is completely shaken and impliedly overruled by the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Grain and Seed Merchants Association v. Union of India (UOI) and Shah Ashu Jaiwant v. State of Maharashtra . Relying upon the portion underlined above it is urged that it is open to a person charged under the provisions of Section 16(1) of the Act to point out that he had given notice to the customers that what was being sold was not meant for human consumption. In other words, it was not an article of food and was not sold as such. It is submitted that this position will also avail whenever there is a charge of sale of an article in contravention of Rule 44-A. In our opinion there is no merit in the above contention.