Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 178 (1.90 seconds)

Kola Ram V. State Of Rajasthan vs Kola Ram V. State Of Rajasthan on 30 April, 2015

which was prepared at the site while samples were seized reveals that the sample of the milk was taken after stirring the milk. Therefore, this ... follows: Milk fat ....................................... 1.7% Milk Solids not fat .............................. 7.3% Stanch and cane sugar ....................... Absent and am of the opinion that the sample does not conform
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - A S Grewal - Full Document

Hardeep Singh Banga vs State on 16 September, 2015

sharp and substantive variation in both milk solid not fat and milk fat content. Consequently, the samples drawn by the respondent cannot be said ... reproduced as under:­ i) Sample Description:­ Sample received loose in sealed sample bottle. ii) Physical appearance:­ White coloured sample of milk. FSAT
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prafulla Parkash Bhatnagar vs State on 16 September, 2015

sharp and substantive variation in both milk solid not fat and milk fat content. Consequently, the samples drawn by the respondent cannot be said ... reproduced as under:­ i) Sample Description:­ Sample received loose in sealed sample bottle. ii) Physical appearance:­ White coloured sample of milk. iii) Label:­ Original label
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shantilal Velji Rajgor vs State Of Gujarat on 20 February, 2015

quashed.   In   both   the   said  judgments, the issue was regarding milk sample and therefore, it is  submitted   that   if   there   is   no   evidence   that ... milk   was   stirred  before sample was taken, the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted.  It   is   therefore   submitted,   referring   the   observation   that   before  sample
Gujarat High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S G Shah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next