Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.90 seconds)Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Girdhari Lal & Sons vs Balbir Nath Mathur & Ors on 26 February, 1986
The Supreme Court in the case of Girdhari Lal and
Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur and Ors.,
[1986]1SCR383 has held as follows.--
Workmen Of Messrs Firestone Tyre ... vs Management & Others (With Connected ... on 6 March, 1973
15. Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned senior counsel, also referred to letter
dated 2.7.2001 addressed by BIS to the petitioner as per which the
petitioner was permitted to consume old stock of labels with stickers
specimen bearing BIS mark and licence numbers. His argument was that
on some bottles these old labels were used with the permission so that
the petitioner is able to consume the said stock of labels and this was
hyper technical violation on the basis of which criminal complaint was
filed, more so when the authorities were satisfied about the standards of
WP (C) No.6791/2008 & WP(Crl.) No.244/2010 Page 19 of 22
the product sold. It was argued that penal statute had to be construed
strictly as held in The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co.
of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management and Others, 1973(1) SCC 813
(Pr.35), G. Giriyappa and Others v. Anantharai L. Parekh and Others,
(1994) 3 SCC 489 (Pr.9). It was further submitted that for this kind of
violation it is only the BIS which could prosecute.
The Assistant Commissioner, ... vs M/S. Velliappa Textiles Ltd. & Anr on 16 September, 2003
Attention was drawn
to two judgments of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner,
Assessment-II, Bangalore & Ors. v. Velliappa Textiles Ltd. and
Another, 2003(11) SCC 405 (Pr.5) and Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan
v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622 (Pr.18 & 19).
Bureau Of Indian Standards vs Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd. on 21 November, 2008
16. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that
the petition for quashing of the complaint at this stage was not
maintainable. More so when it was found that sample was in violation
of Rule 49(28) of PFA Act as same was being sold without ISI
certification. He submitted that while issuing the process the learned
ACMM had taken note of the necessary facts in his orders dated
5.3.2009 and dealt with the same contention of the petitioner finding
prima facie violation of the said provision as well as violation of Section
2(ix)(k) of the PFA Act, which is punishable under Section 16(1)(9) of
the PFA Act read with Section 7 thereof. He also relied upon the
WP (C) No.6791/2008 & WP(Crl.) No.244/2010 Page 20 of 22
judgment of this Court in Bureau of Indian Standards v. Pepsico India
Holdings P. Ltd. & Anr., 155 (2008) DLT 588 (DB).