Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Section 2 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Public Prosecutor vs Kalloor Rayavaram Co-Operative Milk ... on 22 November, 1963
19. Even otherwise it is necessary to carry out the freezing point test to determine scientifically the percentage of added water in the milk so that it can be said to be adulterated by addition of water. It would also then show whether the percentage of SNF which is found to be low is correct or not. In the absence of such a test it cannot be said that the report of the Public Analyst is correct on the basis of which due to percentage of SNF below the prescribed standard although the fat percentage is very high the accused is sought to be convicted. The importance of the freezing point test is emphasised and the said test is accepted by the Courts as the fair and safe method of determining the added water in milk (see Public Prosecutor v. K. Rayavaram Co-op. Milk Supply Society Ltd. (1964) 2 Mad U 53 : 1964 (2) Cri U 39 and State of Gujarat v. Bhagubhai Ramjibhai (1982) 2 FAC 314 : 1982 Cri LJ 2270. The Public Analyst has determined the percentage of added water as 14.4 without adopting the aforesaid freezing point test but has determined the same in a rough and ready manner which cannot be accepted as the correct determination of the percentage of added water in the absence of the aforesaid test. Since there is no charge against the accused of selling the milk with added water under Rule 44 of the Rules there is no question of any conviction in regard to the breach of the said rule «s such. The said question has to be considered, however, only from the point of view of adulteration in the sense as covered by Section 2(ia)(m) of the Act, Since the milk has been held to be a primary food the variations in SNF which appear to be due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency as discussed above, the sample of milk in the instant case cannot be said to be adulterated within the meaning of the said sub-clause. Moreover, if the total solids are constant as given in the book by Meyers relied upon on behalf of the appellant it is not shown how the total solids are more in the instant case than the prescribed percentage of 12.75 which would also show that the report of the Public Analyst is not proper and correct. In this view of the matter the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant are liable to be rejected.
State Of Gujarat vs Bhagubhai Ramjibhai on 14 July, 1982
In support of his contention reliance is placed by him upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Public Prosecutor v. K. Rayavaram Co-op. Milk Supply Society Ltd. (1964) 2 Mad LJ 53 : 1964 (2) Cri LJ 39 and the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Bhagubhai Ramjibhai (1982) 2 FAC 314 : 1982 Cri LJ 2270.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy on 23 May, 1957
10. The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the meaning of the word "agriculture" occurring in Section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 in the case of Commr. of Income-tax v. Benoy Kumar Saha Roy . The Supreme Court has observed in the said decision that although the word "agriculture" in its root sense means ager, a field and culture, cultivation, cultivation of field which of course implies expenditure of human skill and labour upon land.
State Of Kerala vs A.P. Abdul Khader on 16 June, 1978
12. The second requisite of the definition of the expression "primary food" is that the produce of agriculture or horticulture must be in "natural form". It cannot be doubted that the cow's milk which is drawn from the secretions of a cow reared on that which grows on the land must mean that it is in its natural form i.e. no change is brought out by intervention of any other agency. In my view the cow's milk, therefore, satisfies the requirement of the definition of the expression "primary food" given in Section 2(xiia) of the Act. I am supported in this view by the decision of the Kerala High Court in State of Kerala v. A. P. Khader, 1979 Cri LJ 295 which has been approved and followed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Natvarlal C. Shah, v. Prabhatbhai Punjabhai (1980) 1 FAC 489.
Natvarlal C. Shah, Food Inspector vs Prabhatbhai Punjabhai And Anr. on 7 March, 1983
12. The second requisite of the definition of the expression "primary food" is that the produce of agriculture or horticulture must be in "natural form". It cannot be doubted that the cow's milk which is drawn from the secretions of a cow reared on that which grows on the land must mean that it is in its natural form i.e. no change is brought out by intervention of any other agency. In my view the cow's milk, therefore, satisfies the requirement of the definition of the expression "primary food" given in Section 2(xiia) of the Act. I am supported in this view by the decision of the Kerala High Court in State of Kerala v. A. P. Khader, 1979 Cri LJ 295 which has been approved and followed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Natvarlal C. Shah, v. Prabhatbhai Punjabhai (1980) 1 FAC 489.