Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (1.45 seconds)The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Kanshi Ram Jagan Nath And Others vs The State on 28 July, 1961
In view of the decision of this court in Kanshi Nath (supra) the
arguments made on behalf of the State by the learned APP that the trial court
should have only considered the CFL report and not the PA report holds no
ground as the perusal of the trial court judgment delineates substantial variance
between the report of the PA and the Director CFL in terms of milk fat
contents, which exceeds the permissible variation of 0.3%. The State has not
satisfactorily explained the said variance.
Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
1