Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.17 seconds)

Chetumal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. on 24 April, 1981

In the decision in Chetumal's case 1981 Cri LJ 1009 (SC) (supra) in the certificate of the Director it was stated that the article of food was adulterated but his report also disclosed that there was tampering of seals. In the aforesaid circumstances, there the Supreme Court held that the certificate superseded the report of the Public Analyst and the certificate itself could not be used due to tampering of seals and, therefore, was no evidence left with the court on which conviction could be sustained. It was held that the appellant was deprived of the opportunity to which he was entitled for no fault of his. The decision cannot therefore be relied upon as an authority for the proposition that the remaining or the third sample cannot be sent to the Director.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 74 - O C Reddy - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs Mammu Musaliar And Ors. on 31 July, 1974

In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision in the State of Kerala v. Mammu Musaliar 1975 FAJ 13 : 1975 Cri LJ 409 (Ker) (FB). In that decision it has been pointed out that if there is room for any doubt in the mind of the Court about the correctness of the report delivered by the Analyst or the certificate issued by the Director, the Analyst or the Director, as the case may be, could be summoned and examined to elicit clarification.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Bhim Sen For R.S. Malik Mathra Das And ... vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 1951

16. It may be pointed out that in the decision in Bhim Sen v. State of Punjab the appellant was the manufacturer of aerated water which he sold under the name 'Fresh cola'. It was held that according to the standard of quality prescribed for aerated water, it may or may not contain sugar and, therefore, even when it contained some percent of sucrose, it could not be held to be adulterated by treating it as 'sweetened aerated water' which required prescribed per cent of sucrose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 39 - Full Document
1