Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
Lha vs Rakesh Kumar on 29 April, 2010 cites

Kanshi Ram Jagan Nath And Others vs The State on 28 July, 1961

weight matter in respect of sample of Chhanna by the report of two analysts is not within acceptable range of 0.3%. No explanation has come on record in respect of variation of 4.5% in milk fat content in the counterpart of same sample. Thereby relying upon Kanshi Nath versus State (supra), I am of the considered view that the sample was not representative.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 566 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 30 January, 1981

'' Para No.5 - The delay in filing of complaint and the consequent delay in sending of the counterpart sample to CFL weighed in the mind of learned appellate court for acquitting the respondent. As per learned appellate court delay in filing the complaint would result in depriving the respondent of his valuable right under Section 13 (2) of the P.F.A Act. Sample was taken on 7th December, 1988 whereas complaint was filed after about four months thus, according, to learned appellate court respondent could exercise right under Section 13 (2) of P.F.A Act only after lapse of more than five months. It was held that sample was not preserved by that time, thus, would have de-composed and become unworthy for analysis by CFL. Reliance was placed on Chanan Lal vs. State reported in 292, Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 1972 DEL.''
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 52 - S M Ali - Full Document
1