Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Gangadhar Yashvant Ramekar vs Mukeshbhai B. Shah And Ors. on 30 September, 1998
In the case of "Gangadhar Yeshwant Ramekar
v. Mukeshbhai Shah & Ors., 1999 (2) FAC 9" has observed
that whether the containers were not clean and had been
taken from the shop of the accused then it was non-compliance
of Rule 14 and the benefit of the same has to be given to the
accused.
State Of Gujarat vs Jitendra Tulsidas And 2 Ors. on 16 January, 2007
Similarly, in the case of "State of Gujarat v.
Rajendra Tulsidas & Ors., 2011(2) FAC 299, Gujarat High
Court", the Food Inspector had admitted that the closed
bottles in which the samples were kept, had not been cleaned
and tried by himself nor were they cleaned and dry under his
supervision. It was held that the mandatory requirement of
Rule 14 had not been complied.
Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ghisa Ram on 23 November, 1966
In the light of
the observations made in the case of "Ghisa Ram (supra)",
these samples would have thus been fit for analysis only for a
period of four months. In the present case, the sample had
been lifted on 21.12.005 but the complaint has been filed in
the Court only on 02.06.2006 i.e. after 5½ months, which
implies that the sample had been rendered unfit for analysis on
the request of the accused.
Section 374 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 30 January, 1981
14. From the judgments referred above, it is evident
that if the sample taken is of milk products then they can be
considered fit for analysis upto a maximum of five months that
too, if the preservative is added and they are kept in
refrigerator.
Sibanath Singh vs State Of Assam on 10 April, 2001
In the case of "Sibanath Singh v. State of
Assam, 2002 (1) FAC 166 Gauhati High Court" it was
observed that when the law requires a certain thing to be done
in a certain way that thing must be done in that manner.
1