Showing : 51-60 of 435 Results

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 2, 7, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482-- Analysis of sample - Delay in sending - Quashing of proceedings - Sample of packaged drinking water is found to be contaminated with Coliform Bacteria - Local Health Authority sent notice to petitioners notifying that they can get sample analyzed from Central Food Laboratory - Prayer of..........
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 7, 16-- Misbranding - Non mention of month and year of expiry of article - Not a trivial offence - Analyst can determine whether omission is misbranding - Person nominated by firm to deal with its business prosecuted - Vendor of food can be impleaded - Cognizance rightly taken...........
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 7(1), 16(1)(a)(i)-- Mixed milk of cow and goat - Proportion of mixing of such milk not available - It is the lowest standard given for a particular cattle which shall be accepted - In the instant case milk of cow mixed with milk of goat - Fat percentage is lowest in goat milk i.e. 3.0% whereas the lowest percentage..........
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 7(1), 7(5), 13(2), Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 32-- Besan - Adulteration - Applicants given copy of Public Analyst Report after expiry of shelf life of food article - Applicants thus deprived of their valuable right of getting sample analysed from CFL - Further continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court -..........
KERALA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 13(2)-- Offence of misbranding - Right of accused to get his sample analyzed - Held, even in a case where offence of misbranding alone is disclosed on analysis of sample food item by public analyst and that has led to prosecution of offender thereof, he is still having statutory right to invoke S.13(2) of..........
KERALA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 13(2)-- Report of Central Food Laboratory - It is substitution with the report of Public Analyst - If the report of CFL discloses no offence whatsoever, then, it is a case for cessation of the prosecution proceedings - However, when report of CFL is different with that of Public Analyst then accused..........
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Section 13(1)(e), 13(2), 19- - Private complaint - Sanction for prosecution as required u/s 19 of Act is a condition precedent to entertain private complaint alleging offences under P.C. Act - Special Judge referred complaint to police without considering whether private complaint against member of Legislative Assembly which..........
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 7, 16-- Storage or distribution of an adulterated article of food for a purpose other than for sale does not fall within the mischief of Ss.7 & 16 of the Act - Merely for the reason that sample was given without stating that it was not for sale or that its price was accepted does not ipso facto amount to..........
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 7, 16-- Curd - While collecting sample of curd it has to be cut vertically then churned if the curd has not settled - There is a marked difference between stirring and churning - While article can be said to have been stirred if it is rotated by means of spoon and churning would mean that it is vigorously..........
DELHI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2013
Details
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 20, 20A, 17, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 305, 319-- Offence by company - Sample of `Fruit Yogurt' was found to be not conforming to standard of `Fruit Yogurt' - Prosecution of directors - Held, provision of S.20A could be used only to summon manufacturer, distributor or dealer - Cognizance could not be taken against directors of company - Summoning..........

Showing : 51-60 of 435 Results