Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940
State Of Haryana vs Brij Lal Mittal & Ors on 30 April, 1998
In
this connection reference be made to decisions of this
Court in State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal [(1998) 5
SCC 343] under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940;
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ghisa Ram on 23 November, 1966
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram [AIR 1967
SC 970]; Chetumal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
[(1981) 3 SCC 72} and Calcutta Municipal Corporation
v. Pawan Kumar Saraf, [(1999)] 2 SCC 400] all under
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Hari Obula Reddy And Ors. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 September, 1980
7. This Court in R.HARI HARA REDDY v. STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH1 held that the inordinate delay in filing the complaint
would deprive the valuable right offered on the accused under
Section 13(2) of the Act. Because of the violation of the mandatory
requirement, no purpose would be served by continuing the
prosecution against the accused.
Calcutta Municipal Corporation vs Pawan K. Saraf And Anr on 13 January, 1999
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram [AIR 1967
SC 970]; Chetumal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
[(1981) 3 SCC 72} and Calcutta Municipal Corporation
v. Pawan Kumar Saraf, [(1999)] 2 SCC 400] all under
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Chetumal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. on 24 April, 1981
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram [AIR 1967
SC 970]; Chetumal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
[(1981) 3 SCC 72} and Calcutta Municipal Corporation
v. Pawan Kumar Saraf, [(1999)] 2 SCC 400] all under
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
State Of Haryana vs Unique Farmaid (P.) Ltd. And Ors on 7 October, 1999
8. The decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF HARYANA
v. UNIQUE FARMAID (P) LTD.2 is also on the same lines.
The contention therein that in the absence of the statutory time
limit the shelf life of the sample was not relevant, was rejected.
Relevant portion at paragraphs 11 and 12 observed as follows: