FOOD ADULTERATION ACT

1SARJOO PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHCoram: SHAH, J.C.16/12/1960Food Adulteration-Sale of adulterated oil by servant- Servant, whether liable-Mens rea, if necessary-Second offence--Sentence, lesser than minimum prescribed when can be given--Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954)The appellant was an employee of one T, a vendor of edible oils. He was found to have sold adulterated mustard oil and he and T were prosecuted for an offence under S. 7 read with S....16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Both wClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
2M. V. JOSHI Vs. M. U. SHIMPI AND ANOTHER.Coram: SUBBARAO, K.27/02/1961Food Adulteration-Butter-If includes butter made from curd No foreign article mixed but below standard prescribed--If adulterated-Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), ss. 2(i)(a), 7(i), 16(1)(a)-Prevention of Food AdulteratiThe appellant was selling butter which was found to be below the standard prescribed. He was convicted under s. 16(1) read with S. 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twoClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
3JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.Coram: SARKAR, A.K.15/04/1965Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Higher punishment for "second offence"--Whether offence of the same type or offence subsequent in time.The appellant having been once convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for keeping foodstuff for sale in a container without covering it, was for a second time convicted for selling foodstuff which had been coClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
4M/S. BABURALLY SARDAR AND ANOTHER Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTACoram: MUDHOLKAR, J.R.29/11/1965Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), s. 19(2) and proviso to Rule 12-A-Description of contents on label of tin--Contents described as "Full cream sweetened condensed milk" and "scientifically preserved pure and producedSamples of a certain brand of tinned condensed milk were taken from the appellants' shop by the Food Inspector. The Public Analyst found the fat content of the condensed milk below standard. When prosecuted under s. 16(1) (a) (i) of the PrevenClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
5M. V. KRISHNAN NAMBISSAN Vs. STATE OF KERALACoram: SUBBARAO, K.18/01/1966Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954), ss. 7 and 16(1) (a) (i) and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, rr. 5, 44 and Appendix B--Butter-milk--Standard of quality whether specified.The appellant was the manager of a dairy farm. He was charged with an offence under ss. 7 and 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with r. 44 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, in that, he expClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
6MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. GHISA RAMCoram:23/11/1966Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954), s. 13(2), (3) and (5)-Delay in filing prosecution-Sample given to accused vendor decomposed-Examination ofsample by Director of Central Food Laboratory not possible-Accussed,if prejudiced.The Food Inspectorof the appellant-Municipality took a sample of curd from the respondent's shop for the purpose of testing whether there was any adulteration. The sample was divided into three equal parts, put in separate bottles and sealed.Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
7MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. JAGDISH LAL SON OF RADHAKISHAN & ANR.Coram: RAMASWAMI, V.27/05/1969Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1964 (37 of 1964), s. 20--Municipality authorizing Municipal Prosecutor to file complaint on its behalf-Accused acquitted-Municipality whether 'complainant' within meaning of s. 417(3) of Code of Civil PA complaint under s. 7 read with s. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1964 was filed against the respondent. It was filed by the Municipal Prosecutor who had been authorised to file such complaints by a resolution passedClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
8DHIAN SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD, SAHARANPURCoram: HEGDE, K.S.31/07/1969Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954), s. 20--Scope of-- Complaint signed by Food Inspector but Municipal Board shown as complainant--Appeal by Municipal Board under s. 417(3) Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898)--MOn a report of the Public Analyst that the coloured sweets sold by the appellant were adulterated a complaint was filed before the Magistrate under s. 7, read with s. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The trial court acquittedClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
9RANGANATHA REDDIAR Vs. THE STATE OF KERALACoram: SIKRI, S.M.14/08/1969Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, s. 14--The Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1954 R. 12-A, proviso--Scope of---Cash memo-covering food item found adulterated-Containing wording "quality upto the mark"--If sufficientIt was alleged in a complaint against the appellant, who held a wholesaler's license, that he had stored and sold compounded asafoetida which was found to have been adulterated. It was the appellant's case that he had purchased tClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
10ANDHRA PRADESH GRAIN & SEED MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION ETC. ET Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.Coram: SHAH, J.C.31/03/1970Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954), ss. 7, 10 and 19--Constitutional validity of.The petitioners are traders in foodgrains, edible oils and other articles of food. In a petition under Art.32 they challenged the validity of ss. 7, 10 and 19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. They contended that: (1)Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
11DWARKA NATH & ANR. Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHICoram: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.23/04/1971The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954), s. 23(1) (c), (d), and (g), and Rules made thereunder r. 32(b) and (e)-If within rule making power.The appellants were carrying on business in ghee. On the labels of the tins of ghee the name of the business premises of the appellants and the postal division were given but the number of premises and the locality where the premisesClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
12FOOD INSPECTOR, CALICUT CORPORATION Vs. CHERUKATTIL GOPALAN AND ANR.Coram: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.06/05/1971Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954)- Section 16 (1)(a)(i)-Sale of Food for analysis-To be guilty of offence under section, food need not be intended for sale and person selling need not be a dealer.A sale of an article of food for analysis being "sale" within the meaning of s. 2(xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, an article of food sold to the Food Inspector, if found to be adulterated, the accused will be guilty ofClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
13JAGDISH PRASAD ALIAS JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGALCoram: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN13/12/1971Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 54-Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955-Appendix B A 17.06-Public Analyst- Failure to report on all tests-Does not make report ineffective-Section 16(i)--Sentence-Circumstances justifying reductiThe appellant, manager of an Oil Mill, was convicted under s. 7(i)/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. His appeal to the Sessions Judge was without success and a revisiClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
14ISHAR DAS Vs. STATE OF PUNJABCoram: KHANNA, HANS RAJ31/01/1972Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, s. 4(1) Conviction under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Accused below 20 years-Minimum sentence of imprisonment and fine prescribed as punishment for offence If Probation of Offenders Act applicaThe appellant, who was less than 20 years was convicted for an offence under s. 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and was ordered to furnish a bond under s. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The High CourtClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
15MOHAMMED YAMIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADE5H & ANOTHERCoram: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN26/04/1972Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 37 of 1954 ss. 7 and 16-Definition of jaggery in Para A. 07.05 of Rules made under Act-Standard laid down for jaggery whether applies to Shakkar-Shakkar whether jaggery-If dealer sells adulterated ShakkarThe Food Inspector purchased 1-1/2 seers of Shakkar from the appellant after paying its price. He divided the sample into three parts, gave one to the appellant and retained the other two with him. One of the samples retained' was sent to theClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
1 2 3 4 5

Comments