Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.29 seconds)Section 13 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ghisa Ram on 23 November, 1966
"3. The contention of the revisionist is
that an account of undue delay in filing the
Complaint against him for the alleged
adulteration and also on account of inordinate
delay in sending the report of the Public
Analyst to him be was 'deprived of his
valuable right to move for obtaining the report
of the Director of Central Food Laboratory
under Section 13(2) of the Act with regard to
the sample of the milk taken. His contention is
that as the report of the Public Analyst was
sent to him as late as on 1211980 that is to
say about 8 months after taking of the sample
it was obviously quite useless for him to move
far obtaining the, report of the Central Food
Laboratory under Section 13 of the Act,
32
because by that time the sample must be
decomposed and deteriorated and would not
have remained fit for analysis his connection
it is material to note that even the complaint
against the , revisionist on the basis of the
report of the Public Analyst seems to have
been reveived in the Court on 10180. The
complaint is dated 311279. The revisionist
has relied on the cast of Municipal Corporation
of .Delhi v. Ghisa Ram 1975(1) FAC 186 and
Desh Raj v. State of U.P. 1985(I) FAC 135 in
support of his contention. On account of
inordinate delay the revisionist was virtually
deprived of his valuable right under Section 13
of the Act to get the sample analysed by the
Director of Central Food Laboratory. It was of
no use to move for obtaining the report of the
Director , of Central Food Laboratory as the
sample kept in the office of Chief Medical
Officer, must have decomposed and
deteriorated making it unfit for analysis by the
Director. Consequently, the conviction and
sentences of the revisionist cannot be upheld
in the revision. The revision has to be
allowed."
The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Calcutta Municipal Corporation vs Pawan K. Saraf And Anr on 13 January, 1999
In Kanshi Nath after referring
to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Pawan
Kumar Saraf 1999 (1) FAC 1 and the
judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Bishan
12
Sarup 1972 FAC 273, this Court observed as
under (PFA Cases, p. 227):
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Bishan Sarup Etc. on 11 March, 1970
13. Following the said judgment of this Court
in Kanshi Nath, it is held that in the instant
case the variation in the samples sent to the
Public Analyst and the CFTRI is beyond the
acceptable limits and renders the samples
unrepresentative. The conviction of the
Respondents can, therefore, not be sustained
in law. Accordingly, the impugned order of the
ASJ acquitting the Respondents calls for no
interference."
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ram Lal Malik And Ors. on 1 April, 1982
The
observations of Kerala High Court in Mathukutty's case (supra) being in conflict
20
with the consistent view of our Hon High Court in Lala Ram's case (supra),
Jawaharlal's case (supra) and the recent Mahender Kumar's case (supra) does
not help the respondent State in these appeals.
Jagdish Prasad vs State Of Delhi And Anr. on 15 September, 1981
Therefore, the Jagdish Prasad's case (supra) is
distinguishable on facts and inapplicable to the present appeals.