|
|
|
|
|
|
N. SUKUMARAN NAIR V / S FOOD INSPECTOR MAVELIKARA 1997 S. C. C. [CRI] 608 Sample of ice cream purchased from the accused was found to be adulterated by the public analysts, it was argued that the rule 18 was not complied with in as much as the food inspector did not adduce the evidence regarding the postal receipt to establish that he had sent not only the sample properly sealed. but the specimen seal impression separately, the food inspector could be understood to have wrong, if his statement had been challenged in the cross-examination. The food inspector deposed the observation of the requirement of rule 18, but his statement is otherwise found corroborated from the report of the public analyst wherein the necessary recitals though in printed form are available, compliance of rule 18 becomes obvious
|
|
Copyright © 2001 rajeev bhatjiwale
|
