|
|
|
|
|
| BADRI PRASAD V/S STATE OF M.P. 1996 S. C. C. [CRI] 79 Addition of coloring matter to chilies powder per se would make the article adulterated the only plea. raised on behalf of the accused was that the chilies powder purchased from him by the food inspector had confirmed to the standards in all other respect and therefore there was no cause for the public analyst to give opinion that the food article was adulterated, but since the rules prescribed that no coloring matter should be added to chilies powder , the addition of coloring or flavoring material is prohibited
NIRMAL KUMAR V/S STATE OF M P 1986 J L J 750 It was argued that the milk in question was not meant or stored for sale but to make tea. The Supreme Court has in an identical case of FOOD INSPECTOR CALLICUT V/S C GOPALAN A I R 1971 S C 1725 , where the sugar stored for preparing tea was purchased , sugar was kept on the Ford the purpose of being mixed with the, and was not at all intended to be sold as sugar the shopkeeper was found guilty of selling adulterated sugar. His conviction was maintained by the Supreme Court. In the light of this ruling of Supreme Court the argument advanced by the accused that he was not selling the milk was not acceptable.
NARENDRA KUMAR V/S MUNICIPAL CORP. INDORE 1986 J L J 745 The order of the trial court to send the third part of the sample to the central laboratory , after the second part sent earlier was found to have wrongly analyzed, was under challenge. Sample was to be analyzed for MACARONI products, but was analyzed for prepared food. Referring to decisions in DALCHAND`S CASE A I R 1983 S C 303 it is clear that any interpretation of the provisions as prohibiting the third part of the sample being sent to central laboratory, where it is found that the certificate already sent is not clear on the controversy, must not be permitted to prevail. The order sending the third part of the sample was confirmed
|
|
Copyright © 2001 rajeev bhatjiwale
|
