Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.63 seconds)Section 11 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Dr. Babu Ram Saksena vs The State on 5 May, 1950
Nothing further appears in the report about the evidence of the Food Inspector which, as remarked by Sodhi, J., was very perfunctory. It thus appears that the adding of formalin into the bottles was not testified to by any of the witnesses for the prosecution and that the reference to formalin appearing in Sodhi, J.'s judgment was based on the allegations made in the complaint or on the contents of the documents prepared by the Sub-Inspector at the time when he secured the sample. If the Food Inspector who took the sample from Babu Ram had deposed at the trial that he added formalin to each bottle, the requirement of Rule 20 would be satisfied and there would have been no occasion for Sodhi, J., to observe that the strength of the preservative in question was not established; for, formalin, as already indicated by me, is a liquid containing a particular percentage of formaldehyde in a special type of solution and that when a person talks of "formalin", he must be deemed to refer to a liquid of that specification. Babu Ram's case is, therefore, distinguishable on the ground that the evidence of the Food Inspector therein is not shown to have supported the allegation of the prosecution that the preservative added to the curd secured from Babu Ram was formalin.
The State vs Sadhu Singh on 29 March, 1961
* * * * * *
Memo. Exhibit P. C. in the instant case fully conforms to the requirements laid down by Gurdev Singh, J., with whom I most respectfully agree and hold that the absence of signatures of Ram Prakash peon and Moti Ram (P. W. 3) on documents Exhibits P. A. and P. B. does not at all amount to a non-compliance with the provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the Act.
Section 13 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ghisa Ram on 23 November, 1966
9. The next contention put forward: by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no process was issued or served against the petitioner till the 17th of February, 1970, by when the sample in question must have decomposed so as to have become unfit for analysis, thus depriving the petitioner of the right guaranteed to him under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act to have the contents of the bottle entrusted to him analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the Director). It is urged that the petitioner is in consequence entitled to be acquitted. Reliance in this connection is placed on Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram , which, however, in my opinion, has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case the Food Inspector had not taken the precaution of adding the necessary preservative to the sample which, when sent to the Director in pursuance of an application made under Section 13(2) of the Act was found to have become highly decomposed and unfit for analysis. In those circumstances their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that a valuable right given to the vendor under Section 13(2) of the Act could not be availed of and that the conviction was bad. In the present case the petitioner never applied to the trial Court to have the sample with him analysed by the Director. Section 13(2) of the Act states:
Section 342 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ajit Prasad Ramkishan Singh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 May, 1972
The opinion expressed in Criminal Ap-peal No. 161 of 1966, D/- 3-5-1968 (SC) and was reiterated by their Lordships in Ajit Prasad Ramkishan Singh v. The State of Maharashtra , wherein the contention now under examination was raised on behalf of Ajit Prasad Ramkishan Singh appellant and was repelled with the following observations made by Mathew, J., speaking for the Court:
1