Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16,7,13(2) -- by itself not a ground to throw out prosecution case. - Violation of time limit given in ,R. 7(3) - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, R. 7(3)..........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 -- is only directory and not mandatory...........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 -- Use of permitted synthetic food colours in peas kept in open containers - Not permitted - In other words the same is prohibited...........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1)(a)(i), 13, Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 22, 22B -..........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 13(2) -- Second sample for analysis - Delay - Sample taken in the year 1993 - Sample not produced in Court for a period of almost three years after filing of application u/s 13(2) of the Act - Second sample could not be sent for analysis to CFL till 2004 - Delay in sending second sample for analysis to CFL amounts to..........
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 -- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, S.9, Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, R.8 High Court - Powers - Appointment of Food Inspectors Issuance of Writ of mandamus - Legality of - Held, State Govt. could appoint a medical officer i, charge of health administration of a local area as a Food Inspector - If High Court..........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1)(a)(i) -- Presence of talc (Magnesium Silicate) in Urd whole - Talc not a permitted inorganic matter - Held, presence of talc in food grains regardless of its percentage makes the food article adulterated...........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 13(2) -- Adulteration - Sample of Dhania found adulterated with few turmeric starches - Only microscopic examination of food article conducted - No chemical test done - Precise nature or content of same also not specified - Held, benefit of doubt has been rightly granted to accused - Acquittal calls for no interference...........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 7, 13(2), 16 -- Report of public analyst sent in the name of wrong firm - Real owner did not accept the same - Petitioner lost his right to send second sample to CFL as 10 years have passed since sample was taken - Proceedings quashed...........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 23(1A)(d), 2, 7, 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 32 -- Labeling of food articles - Expression "complete address" in R.32 - Meaning thereof - Held, expression `complete address' appearing in R.32(c)(i) of the Rules does not necessarily include name of State - Substance of the Rule is satisfied when..........
