Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)
Jagdishchandra Khandulal vs The State Of Gujarat & on 20 April, 2015 cites

The State Of Gujarat vs Shantaben on 14 June, 1971

SC  183,   (iii)   Mohanlal   Manganlal   Sindhi   vs.   State   of  Gujarat   [1977   GLR   1002],   (iv)   State   of   Gujarat   vs.  Shah Sumanchandra Roshanlal being Criminal Appeal No.  33   of   1993   decided   on   18.12.2001   and   (v)   State   of  Gujarat  vs.  Shantaben   wd/o.  Bhoi   Dhulabhai   Devabhai  [1963(0)   GLHEL­HC   212465].   Learned   advocate   for   the  applicant   also   relied   on   the   following   decisions   in  support   of   his   contentions   in   respect   of   non­  compliance   of   Rule   17   and   Rule   18   of   the   Rules,
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

State Of Kerala Etc. Etc vs Alaserry Mohammed Etc. Etc on 10 February, 1978

7.2 The Supreme Court in State of State of Kerala vs.  Alasserry Mohammed [AIR 1978 SC 933]  while examining  the nature of Rule 22 of the Rules and holding it to  be directory, discussed the concept of representative  character of the sample, stating,  "It was argued with reference to Methods in Food  Analysis,   second   edition   by   Maynard   A.   Joslyn  that the sample must be a representative sample.  It   is   with   that   view   that   the   quantity   was  prescribed in Rule­22 and should not be permitted  to   be   tampered   with   in   any   manner.   We   are   not  impressed   by   this   argument   at   all.   A  representative   sample   has   got   a   different  connotation,   meaning   and   purpose   in   commercial  transactions. If, for instance, an average price  is to be fixed for a huge quantity of, say, wheat  lying in bulk in different storages, then samples  must be taken from all the storages to make them  a   representative   sample   of   the   entire   quantity  for   the   fixation   of   the   average   price.   Taking  sample from one storage will not be sufficient.  In our statute the ingredient of the offence is,  as   mentioned   in   the   7th   section   of   the   Act,  manufacturing   for   sale,   storing,   selling   or  distributing   any   adulterated   food.   If   the   food  sold   to   the   Inspector   is   proved   to   be  adulterated,it   is   immaterial   whether   the   sample  purchased   by   him   is   a   representative   sample   or  not   of   the   entire   stock   in   possession   of   the  person.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 59 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Food Inspector, Municipal ... vs Madanlal Ramlal Sharma And Another on 14 December, 1982

In  Food   Inspector,   Municipal  Corporation  vs.  Madanlal  Ramlal  Sharma  [AIR  1983  SC  176], the Apex Court particularly held,  Page 11 of 15 R/CR.RA/224/2005 CAV JUDGMENT "Our attention was not drawn to any provision in  the   Act   or   the   Rules   making   it   obligatory   that  churning should be done with some machine so as  to   make   a   sample   homogeneous   and   representative  sample. We are conscious of the fact that in milk  and   milk   preparations   including   curd,   it   is  distinctly  possible that the fat settles on  the  top and in order to find out whether the milk or  its   preparation   such   as   curd   has   prescribed  content,   the   sample   must   be   homogeneous   and  representative   so   that   the   analysis   can   furnish  reliable   proof   of   nature   and   content   of   the  article of food under analysis. For this purpose  churning   is   one   of   the   methods   of   making   the  sample homogeneous and representative. But having  said   this,   there   is   nothing   in   the   Act   or   the  Rules which prescribes that churning must be done  by some instrument and that churning done by hand  would   not   provide   a   homogeneous   and  representative sample. Common sense dictates that  articles of food like milk and curd when churned  with   hand   would   properly   mix­up   from   top   to  bottom. More so when the quantity is either 600  grams which was the quantity purchased out of 2  1/2 Kgs. which was the quantity in the container.  There was evidence that the churning was done by  spoon.   But   even   if   the   High   Court   found   that  evidence   unreliable   and   evidence   of   defence  witness Devsibhai Ramjibhai so much reliable that  it was prepared to act upon it disagreeing with  the   other   evidence,   the   evidence   of   Devsibhai  Ramjibhai   was   that   churning   was   done   with   hand  and   he   did   not   say   that   the   churning   was   not  effective."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 22 - R B Misra - Full Document

Khandubhai Lalbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & on 1 April, 2013

6.2 The   aforesaid   decision   was   relied   on   again   in  Chandubhai Laljibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat being  Criminal Revision Application No. 331 of 2002 decided  on   18.02.2010,  in   which   the   contention   was   whether  the report of the Central Food Laboratory was received  after   the   compliance   of   procedure   envisaged   in   the  Rules.   No   question   was   asked   to   the   accused   while  recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code.  The Court observed, "Last but not the least, it is pertinent to note  that   the   trial   Court   recorded   the   further  statement   of   the   applicant   accused   after   the  trial Court received the analysis report of CFL.  Exh. 116. Considering the judgment of the trial  Court and even of the Appellate Court, needless  to say that the conviction came to be recorded on  the basis of report of analysis of the sample by  CFL. To put it differently, that was an important  evidence,   which   was   going   against   the   accused.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - A J Desai - Full Document

Manilal Shankarlal Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat & on 14 March, 2012

6.1 This Court in Shankarlal Mangilal Jain vs. State  of   Gujarat   being   Criminal   Revision   Application   No.  110  of 1994  decided  on 15.09.2000,  dealing with the  same question, observed and held, "it   is   equally   true   that   the   accused   was   not  called upon to explain the nature of adulteration  found  in  the  sample  of  oil  collected  from  him.  The only question put to him was "What he had to  say about the report of Director of Central Food  Laboratory? To which he had answered that, "the  Page 7 of 15 R/CR.RA/224/2005 CAV JUDGMENT report is false". The accused was not explained  the   contents   of   the   report   of   the   Director   of  Central Food Laboratory, and it was found to be  adulterated by addition of cotton seed oil, and  no   explanation   was   sought   from   the   accused   as  regards the nature of adulteration. This, in my  view,   can   not   be   said   to   be   an   adequate  opportunity   given   to   the   accused   to   defend   his  action. This opportunity of defence, as envisaged  under Section 313 CRPC, is an important and vital  to   right   of   defence.   The   infringement   of   such  right shall result into acquittal."
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Z K Saiyed - Full Document
1