Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 7 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ghisa Ram on 23 November, 1966
35. It is to also be noted that in the present case, admittedly the
CC No. 252/05
FI Vs. Kalanidhi Page 15 of 18
sample of Tonned Milk was lifted by FI Virendra Singh on 21.07.2005 and
the present complaint has been filed on 11.11.2005 on the basis of PA's
report dated 16.08.2005 i.e. after about 3 ½ months from the date of lifting
the sample. The second counterpart of the sample was analyzed by the
Director, CFL on 31.12.2005 i.e. after about more than 5 months from the
date of lifting the sample. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M.C.D. Vs. Ghisa
Ram AIR 1967 SC 970 held that the shelf life of the milk is about four
months, if it is kept in a room temperature and six months, if it is kept in a
refrigerator."
Gian Chand & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 23 July, 2013
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court also held in Gian Chand Vs.
The State , 1979 Cri LJ 754 that, "Normally the sample of milk with the
Food Inspector, to which preservative had been added, could not have
remained fit for analysis after more than six months even if it had been kept
in a refrigerator."
Ishwar Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 July, 1995
27. In the present case also, the Tonned Milk sample of which was
lifted was lying in a container like drum having capacity of about 2025
litres and having 10 litres of milk at the time of sampling and the milk was
stirred/ homogenized with the help of a milk measure. Therefore, in view of
law laid down in the aforesaid authority, it cannot be said that it was a
proper method of mixing the sample commodity of Tonned milk or that the
CC No. 252/05
FI Vs. Kalanidhi Page 12 of 18
milk was properly stirred or homogenized as also contended by the Ld.
Counsel for accused.
Section 2 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
State (Delhi Administration) vs Ram Singh on 21 May, 1990
Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in State
(Delhi Administration) Vs. Ram Singh & Ors. 2009 (1) FAC 371.
State vs Suresh Kumar & Anr. on 15 December, 2010
In view of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, since
there are variations in the report of PA and CFL which is beyond the
permissible limit of .3 %, it appears that sample was not representative one
and therefore, for this reason benefit of doubt is liable to be given to the
accused.
1