Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)
Laxman Sitaram Pai And Anr. vs The State Of Mysore on 2 February, 1966 cites

State Of Gujarat vs Shantaben Wife Of Bhol Dhulabhai on 6 August, 1963

19. However, in support of her contention, Miss Anasuya relies on the decision , State of Gujarat v. Shantaben, that Ext. 17, the report, has no evidentiary value since it is not in due compliance with Rules 7 and 18 of the Act. What has been stated in that decision is that Rules 7 and 18 are framed in order to prevent the possibility of tampering with the sample before it reaches the Public Analyst. There is nothing on record to show that these rules have been complied with, either by the Food Inspector or the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst merely shows that the seals were intact and unbroken. But it does not show that the seals on the container were compared with the specimen seal sent by post to the Public Analyst. Unless this is done, the Court cannot be sure that the sample which has reached the Analyst was not tampered with on the way and Rules 7 and 18 are framed in order to prevent such a possibility. As this has not been done,. we. cannot say that the report of the Public Analyst refers to the samples of the milk.
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1