Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1)(a)(ii) -- Provision of S.16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act stipulates that the food article shall be deemed to be adulterated if it is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be...........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 14 -- Sample - Procedure prescribed for collection of sample of food by the Food Inspector for the purpose of analysis is not an empty formality - R.14 explicitly provides that samples of food shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers...........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 14 -- Sample - Testimony of PW1 that sample was taken in polythene bag whereas testimony of PW2 that sample was taken in a bottle and went to extent of asserting that he himself cleaned bottles - Vital discrepancy not examined by Courts below - Prosecution failed to prove compliance of mandate of R.14 - Accused acquitted...........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 13(2) -- No explanation for inordinate delay in launching prosecution and intimating accused of his right u/s 13(2) of the Act - Accused acquitted...........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 7, 16, 13(2) -- Ghee - Complaint filed after five years of receiving Public Analyst's report - Accused lost his valuable right of second analysis from Central Food Laboratory as available u/s 13(2) of the Act as it was not possible to get a correct report in relation to that sample because of lapse of time - Right of..........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 7, 16 -- Samples of safflower and sunflower found adulterated by Public Analyst - After receiving the consent letter from competent authority, complaint filed - Second sample sent to Director, CFL who partly confirmed the report of Public Analyst - Accused acquitted on the ground that fresh sanction after the receipt of..........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16 -- Haldi Sabut - Sample found adulterated - Accused convicted and sentenced to six months RI and to pay fine of Rs.1, 000/- - Protracted trial of 22 years - Sentence reduced to 6 days already undergone - Fine enhanced from Rs.1, 000/- to Rs.10, 000/-...........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 7, 16(1), (1A) -- Adulteration of food - Proof of - Sample was lifted from a masala rehri where jhaba which was lying in rehri was used - It is not case of prosecution that sample was taken from three sides and thereafter, it was mixed - Held, it is an admitted fact that sample was not a homogenous sample and therefore..........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1)(a)(i) -- `Cows milk' - Sample found containing 7.8% of milk solids (not fat) as against minimum of 8.5% - Variation in report of Public Analyst and Central Food Laboratory which found milk solids 13.8% - However, milk fat was 3% as against minimum prescribed standard of 4% - Held, report of CFL supersedes report of..........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1)(a)(i), 7 -- Sample of milk - Marginal deficiency in respect of milk solids not fat - Does not go in favour of the accused - The fact remains that the milk solids not fat was not up to the prescribed standards laid down in the Act, and, as such, the sample was adulterated - Conviction upheld...........
