FOOD ADULTERATION ACT

Sl No.TitleCoramDate of JudgementSubjectHeadNotes
46CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. PAWAN K. SARAF AND ANR.Coram: K.T. THOMAS , D.P. WADHWA , S.S. MOHAMMED OUADRI13/01/1999Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 : Section 13(3) and (5)-Proviso. Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 : Rule 4-Forms 1 and 2 Appendix B-Item A.04 : Food adulteration-Contradictions in reports of Public Analyst and Central FoodMunicipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Rum, AIR (1967) SC 970 = [1967] 2 SCR 116 and Chetumal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., AIR (1981) SC 1387 = [1981] 3 SCC 72, relied on. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, [1967] 2 SCR 116 andClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
47OMPARKASH SHIVPRAKASH Vs. K.I. KURIAKOSE AND ORS.Coram: K.T. THOMAS , M.B. SHAH01/11/1999Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Sections 16(1) 16A and 20-A-Power of court to implead manufacturer, distributor or dealer in a case under the Act-invocation of-When--Held, power under Section 20-A cannot be invoked until the trial begAllowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Power of the court to implead the manufacturer, distributor or dealer, in cases involving offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is envisaged in Section 20-A of the Act. The essentiaClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
48FOOD INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM AND ANR. Vs. P.S. SREENIVASA SHENOYCoram: K.T.THOMAS, R.P.SETHI19/07/2000Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Sections 13 and 20(1)-A sample of toor dal was sent for analysis of Public Analyst-Public Analyst giving a report that toor dal was adulterated with Kesari dal-Prosecution started on the basis of reportAllowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. When the certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory superseded the report of the Public Analyst the latter stands sunk to the botoom and in that place the certificate alone would remain on thClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
49RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHANCoram: K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETHI.01/11/2000Criminal Law: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Section 2(v)-Food-Camel's milk-Human consumption-Fitness for- Held: Camel's milk is rich and nutritious-It contains fatty acid and its protein content is the same as in cow's milk-HenceDisposing of the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. Milk is defined in Item A.11.01.01 of Appendix B of Rule 5 of Part III of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. But the definition does not differentiate between milk of different animals. HencClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
50SHRI RANAJOY BOSE Vs. SHRI A.B. ROY & ANR.Coram: D.P. MOHAPATRA, BRIJESH KUMAR05/04/2002Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Sections 7, 16(1) (a)(i) and 20(1)-Offence-Consent for prosecution-Person authorised by State Government by a Notification under Section 20(1) for granting consent- Consent granted by District Health OfficDismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The interpretation that each District Health Officer is authorised to exercise the power under Section 20(1) to accord consent under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in rClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
51DELHI ADMINISTRATION (NOW N.C.T. OF DELHI) Vs. MANOHAR LALCoram: Doraiswamy Raju , Shivaraj V. Patil.29/08/2002Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 433 (d)-Commutation of sentence- Power of-Trial court convicted and sentenced offender under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-First Appellate Court confirmed the same-High Court commuted the sentenDisposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 High Court was merely swayed by considerations of judicial comity and propriety and failed to see that merely because this Court has issued directions in some other cases, to deal with the fact situatClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
52Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel & Ors.Coram: S.B. SINHA, P.P. NAOLEKAR29/08/2006Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958-Sections 2(j), 15, 17, 28, 29, 30(1)(b) 33, 48 and 49-Trade mark-Infringement of-Business under a particular trademark run though a Company-Another firm running business of retail sale of the products of company-Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. In this case the courts below proceeded on a prima facie misconstruction of documents. They adopted and applied wrong standards. The seven outlets were meant to be used for retail sale of the products ofClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
53Satya Narayan Agarwal Vs. State of AssamCoram: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT , D.K. JAIN26/04/2007Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 433/Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; Ss. 7 and 16(1): Food adulteration-Chilli powder-Adulterated-Trial Court found the accused shopkeeper guilty of committing the offence punishable under SectioDismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, it is pointed out by the counsel for the respondent that an application in terms of Section 433 of the Code was made which has been rejected. There is no merit in this appeal which iClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
54State of Gujarat & another Vs. Shaileshbhai Mansukhlal Shah & anotherCoram: R.V. RAVEENDRAN, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA30/05/2007Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954/Rules, 1955-ss. 13 (2)/r. 4(6)-Liability to pay fee for analysis of second sample by Central Food Laboratory-Held, is on the accused. Interpretation of Statutes: Substitution of Statutory provision-HelAllowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. S. 13 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 does not require payment of any fee to the Central Food Laboratory for the second analysis. Nor does it say that the complainant/State or local (HealtClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
55Om Prakash Vs. State (NCT) of DelhiCoram: DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN05/06/2007Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954:- s. 7(1) r/w s.16-Milk in `Khoya' sold by accused found to be 19.075 as against minimum prescribed standard of 20%-Conviction by Trial Court and sentence of 6 months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-impDisposing of the appeal, the Court Held: The appellant has already suffered custody for more than three months. He is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,500/- as fine. On the deposit of the amount being made within the stipulated time and the apprClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
56Mohd. Yaseen Vs. State of U.P.Coram: DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P.P. NAOLEKAR17/07/2007Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 482-Appellant convicted under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Conviction upheld by Appellate Court-Revision rejected-Petition u/s. 482 to recall that order-High Court held that once the appeal has been deDisposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court held that once the appeal has been decided on merits it is not open to exercise power under Section 482, CrPC. The High Court rightly observed that the application under Section 482, CrPCClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
57M/s Parakh Foods Ltd Vs. State of A.P. & AnrCoram: P.P. NAOLEKAR, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA27/03/2008Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Rule 37 D - Labeling of edible oils and fats - Case of misbranding against manufacturer and seller of `refined soyabean oil' - Based on report of public analyst that pictures of vegetables on label of `reAllowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The provision for labeling of edible oils and fats is under Rule 37 D of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 which specifies labeling of edible oils and fats. The Rule clearly states that packagClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
58BENNY THOMAS Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR, KOCHI & ANR.Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM07/07/2008Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - s. 16 (1) (a) (i) r/w s. 7 (1) and s. 2 (ia)(m) / Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - r. 5 r/w Appendix B, Item A.07.08 and r. 50, 17 and 18 - Food sample - Collected by Food Inspector after effecDismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The prosecution has been able to establish that the sarbath purchased from the accused by PW1 is adulterated. Admittedly, the sample was collected by the Food Inspector after effecting purchase and had givClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
59RADHEY SHYAM AGGARWAL Vs. STATE N.C.T. DELHICoram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, ASOK KUMAR GANGULY06/02/2009PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954: S.16-A - Provision for summary trial - Trial Court adopting warrant case procedure - Correctness of -Held: Plea raised for the first time in SLP - No prejudice shown - Hence no violation of requirements of s.16A - However, as the occurrence took place nearly two years back and infractions related to a small quantity, sentence reduced to the perioClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
60RAMJEE PRASAD & ANR. Vs. STATE OF BIHARCoram: HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.M. PANCHAL22/04/2009PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954: ss. 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) - Conviction by trial court u/s 16(1)(a)(i) on the charge that the food article being sold by accused was adulterated - Affirmed by appellate court - High Court in revision holdHeld: Evidence required for recording conviction under the two clauses would be distinct and different - Prejudice is writ large more particularly as the ingredients of the two provisions are substantially different, and evidence of one can lead tClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
1 2 3 4 5

Comments

Post a Comment