FOOD ADULTERATION ACT

Sl No.	Title	Coram	Date of Judgement	Subject	HeadNotes
16	AJITPRASAD RAMKISHAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA	Coram: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN	02/05/1972	Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), s. 13(2) long delay between taking sample and launching prosecution for adulteration of milk-If accused does not make application under s. 13(2) he cannot claim that sample must,	The appellant had a 'sweet meat shop in Bombay whose running he had entrusted to his nephew. The food inspector acting under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 took a sample of buffalo milk from 'he shop. One of the three portion	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
17	JAI NARAIN Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI	Coram: SHELAT, J.M.	23/08/1972	Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Ss. 2(1) (J), 7(1), 16(1) -Sale of patisa prepared with unpermitted coal tar dye--Activity--being distinctly anti-social if s. 4 Probation of Offenders Act could be applied-Probation of Offenders	In Isherdas v. Punjab this Court held on a consideration of s. 18 of the Probation of offenders Act that its operation is not excluded in cases of persons found guilty of offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. That decision	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
18	V. N. KAMDAR AND ANOTHER Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI	Coram: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN	01/05/1973	Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Ss. 20 and 20A- Vendor acquitted on plea that he purchased under warranty-In order to avoid multiplicity of trials warrantor should be tried along with vendor-But non-impleadment of warrantor at trial o	R who was tried for an offence under s. 16 read with s. 7 of the Prevention. of Food Adulteration Act. 1954. stated in Court that he had purchased the curry-powder in question in sealed tins from the appellant under a warranty given by them an	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
19	PYARALI K. TEJANI Vs. MAHADEO RAMCHANDRA DANGE AND OTHERS	Coram: RAY, A.N. (CJ), PALEKAR, D.G., CHANDRACHUD, Y.V., BHAGWATI, P.N., KRISHNAIYER, V.R.	31/10/1973	Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954-Rules 44(g) and 47-Sale of supari with saccharin and cyclamate- Constitutionality of the Rules and rule making power-Supari if food-Guidelines in sentencing--Applicability of Pro- bationers Off	The appellant/petitioner, a dealer in scented supari, was charged with the offence of having sold and retained for selling scented supari with saccharin and cyclamate, prohibited artificial sweeteners, in contravention of S. 7(i)(ii)	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
20	VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB	Coram: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.	14/12/1973	Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, s. 16(i)(a)(b) and Rules-Whether 'Elachi Dana' sold by the appellant was insect-infested and contained less than the required percentage of volatile oil.	The appellant runs a sweetmeat shop in a village in Punjab. The food inspector took a sample of 'Elachi Dana, kept for sale by the appellant and it was found from the report of the Public Analyst that the sample was infested with insects	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
21	RAM LABHAYA Vs. MUNICIPAL CORORATION OF DELHI AND ANR.	Coram: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.	26/02/1974	Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-S. 10(7) whether mandatory or directory-Scope of.	The appellant was charged with an offence under s. 16(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for adulterating foreign starches with haldi. He was acquitted by the Magistrate on the ground that the sample was not taken b	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
22	RAJAL DAS GURU NAMAL PAMANANI Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA	Coram: RAY, A.N. (CJ)	03/12/1974	Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 19(2)- Warranty-Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, Rule 22- Quantity of samples prescribed whether mandatory-Non- compliance with the quantity entitles the accused to be acquitt	The appellant, a grocer, sold compounded asafoetida in sealed tins received from a licenced manufacturer. The appellant stored it properly and sold it in the same slate as he purchased it. The Food Inspector took sample of 100 gms., i	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
23	BHAGWAN DASS JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION	Coram: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH	25/03/1975	Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Ss. 7, 16 and 19(2)-Joint trial of vendor and distributor of food article- If legal-S. 20A-Scope of.	The appellant, a firm of ghee merchants, through its partner as A2 was charged with having sold ghee to Al (the vendor of ghee). A sample of that ghee purchased by the Food Inspector was found (on analysis) to be adulterated. The two accus	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
24	SHAH ASHU JAIWANT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA	Coram: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH	18/08/1975	Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1964-Sec. 2(1) (f) 7(1) 16(i)(a)-Food whether must be for human consumption- Mens rea whether necessary-Presence of the witness	The appellant was charged under section 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act, for contravening section 2(1)(f) and 7(1) of the said Act The Food Inspector purchased black Tils from the appellant. P.W. 1 Tambe was unable t	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
25	PREM BALLAB & ANR Vs. THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)	Coram: BHAGWATI, P.N.	15/09/1976	Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954--Sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) --2 (1)---2 (1) (c) --2(1)(j)--2(1)(l)--Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules Rules 23-28 and 29--Can convic- tion be based on sole testimony of a Food Inspector--Can an ar	The second appellant was the owner of a grocery shop and the first appellant was his salesman in the shop. Food Inspector Bhanot purchased a sample from appellant No. 1 of mustard oil after complying with the formalities prescribed by t	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
26	KISAN TRIMBAK KOTHULA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA	Coram: KRISHNAIYER, V.R.	17/11/1976	Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 .of 1954) Ss. 2(i)(1), 2(ix) (c) and (k), 16(1)(a)(i) and its first proviso and s. 17(1) and (2)--Scope of.	Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, provides inter alia that, if any person whether by himself or by another person on his behalf stores or sells any article of food, which is adulterated or misbrand- ed	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
27	EKNATH SHANKARRAO MUKKAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA	Coram: GOSWAMI, P.K.	12/04/1977	Revisional jurisdiction---Suo motu powers of the High Court to enhance sentence--Power not taken away by provision for appeal against inadequacy of sentence by the State Government or the Central Government---Criminal Procedure Coa	The appellant and his father were charged u/s. 2(1) (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for adul- teration of chilly powder. The sample of chilli powder which was seized by the Food Inspector on April 13, 1974 co	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
28	BAL KISHAN THAPER Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI	Coram:	09/03/1979	Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954)- S. 2(ix) (a) and (g) Scope of-outer label described the contents as "as sweet as sacharin"-Whether a case of misbranding.	The appellant was a manufacturer of a preparation called Para Excellent and Para Asli The outer label of the package describe the contents as "as sweet as saccharin". Under the directions for use it was mentioned on the label that the	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
29	MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. R. SAHARI, GENL. MANAGER, DAURALA SUGAR MILLS, DAURALA & OR	Coram: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA	23/03/1979	Prevention of Food Adulteration Act-Sections 20 & 20-A- Scope of	Toffees sold by a vender to a Food Inspector having been found to be adulterated, prosecution was launched against him. The vendor produced a warranty in the Trial Court as a result of which he was acquitted by the Magistr	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
30	RAMDAS BHIKAJI CHAUDHARI Vs. SADA NAND & ORS.	Coram: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA	03/10/1979	Prevention of Food Adulteration Act-S. 16(1)(a)(i)-High Court followed an earlier decision of Supreme Court and acquitted the respondents-Earlier decision over-ruled by Supreme Court-Effect of previous decision.	The respondents were convicted and sentenced on a charge of contravention of s. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Purporting to follow the decision of this Court in Rajlal Das Pamnani's case the High Court held t	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
1 2 3 4 5