FOOD ADULTERATION ACT

Sl No.TitleCoramDate of JudgementSubjectHeadNotes
31GANESHMAL JASHRAJ Vs. GOVT. OF GUJARAT AND ANR.Coram: BHAGWATI, P.N.30/10/1979Sentence-Minimum sentence prescribed by Statute by under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Accused not pleading guilty under section 229 of the Crl.P.C., but does so in writing as a result of plea bargaining after his examinThe appellant was charged for an offence under section 16(a) (1) of the Preventive of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated turmeric powder to Respondent No. 2, the Food Inspector in the employ of the State. Even though the appClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
32STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. R. KRISHNAMURTHYCoram: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)15/11/1979Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), Ss. 2(1) (a) & 16 (1) (a) (i)-Scope of-Gingelly oil mixed with 15 per cent groundnut oil-Sold or offered for sale for external use-Whether sale of an article of food which is adulteThe prosecution alleged that gingelly oil mixed with 15 per cent of groundnut oil was sold as gingelly oil by the respondent to the Food Inspector. The defence of the respondent was that he kept the oil in his shop to be sold not for cClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
33STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DEVINDER KUMAR & ORS.Coram: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)07/04/1983Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Ss. 7(i), 11 (1) (b), Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955-Rules 22 and 22-A-Sample taken after opening sealed container having larger quantity than required-If valid. Prevention of FOn a complaint by the Food Inspector, who had purchased 1.5 k.g. of vanaspati as sample after opening one sealed tin of 16.5 k.g. out of 20 such tins kept by the vendor for sale, criminal proceedings were instituted against the vendor,Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
34RAJINDER PERSHAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANACoram: VARADARAJAN, A. (J)11/07/1983Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Section 16(1) (c)-Food Inspector sought to take Sample of Foodstuff- Disappearance of shopkeeper from Shop-Whether amounts to prevention from taking sample.A Food Inspector visited the appellant's grocery shop and demanded a sample of dhania for analysis. Leaving the shop on a false pretext, the appellant did not return to the shop for quite a long time. Thereupon after following the requisiClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
35STATE OF MAHARASTRA Vs. BABURAO RAVAJI MHARULKAR & ORS.Coram: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)26/10/1984Deemed Adulteration Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 Rule 5 read with paragraph A. 11.02.08 of Appendix there to and sections 2 (ia) (;) and 2(ia) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-The circumstanBased on the report of Public Analyst which showed that the sample of ice cream purchased by the Food Inspector, E' Ward, Rajarampuri from the shop of the 4th respondent firm, the partners of which were respondents I to 3, contained 5.95% ofClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
36MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. NEW KWALlTY SWEET HOUSE & ORS.Coram: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)05/12/1984Prevention of Food Adulteration Act section 7 read with section 16, scope of Whether the conviction can be recorded under section 7 read with section 16 of the POFA act, even after, a quantity smaller than that required by the Rules to be senPrevention of Food Adulteration Rules requires the Food Inspector to send 250 gms of suji (semolina) for analysis. On August 1, 1975 a Food Inspector purchased a sample of 200 gms of suji from the respondent-accused and sent the same to the PubClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
37RAJENDRA AND TWO OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHCoram: PUNCHHI, M.M.18/07/1991Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954/Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955: S. 7 r/w s. 16, s. 13(2)/rr. 7(3), 9A:--Food adulteration--Food article found adulterat- ed---Delay in analysis report --Local Health Authority not sendinAppellant No. 1 was found exhibiting and offering for sale tea dust. P.W. 1, the Food Inspector purchased tea dust in the requisite quantity for test. Appellant no. 1 told P.W. 1 that the shop which was being run by him was a part- nershipClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
38R. BANERJEE AND ORS. Vs. H.D. DUBEY AND ORS.Coram: AHMADI, A.M. (J)13/03/1992Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Section 17-Prosecution-Launching of-Against Directors/Managers of Public Limited Companies-Nomination made under sub-section (2)-Validity of Nomination- Prosecution only against thThe Respondent Food Inspector visited the godown of a company and lifted samples of orange drink manufactured by the company, as also Vanaspati ghee manufactured by the said company as also by another company. He found that the label affixeClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
39STATE OF U.P. Vs. HANIFCoram: RAMASWAMY, K.31/03/1992Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Section 8-Appointments of Public Analysts by notifications dated 23.6.1972 and 15.2.75-Legality of-Report of the Public Analyst appointed for the State under earlier notification-Validity oThe trial Court convicted the respondent for an offence under s.7 read with s.16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to undergo 6 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 with usual default clause.Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
40K. KRISHNA IYER Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.Coram: ANAND, A.S. (J)30/03/1993Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Sections 7(1), 16(1-A) and 161(a) (i)--Ice stick containing sacharin--Prohibition of artificial sweetener--Sample not in conformity with standards prescribed--Hence adulterated--Presence of dulcin--FThe appellant was selling ice-sticks. The Food inspector took samples and sent one sample to the Public Analyst, who opined that it contained artificial sweeteners viz. saccharin and dulcin and was therefore adulterated. A complaintClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
41DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERSCoram: RAMASWAMY, K.12/09/1995Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : S.20-A/s. 319(3)-Prosecution of other persons than accused-Accused found selling adulterated vanaspati ghee-Trial--Evidence indicating that appellant was manufacturerDismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. There was no embargo on the Magistrate during the trial of the offence to issue notice to the appellant manufacturer for holding joint trial. Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
42SURESH H. RAJPUT ETC. Vs. BHARTIBEN PRAVINBHAI SONI & ORS.Coram: RAMASWAMY, K.28/11/1995Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Section 20(1)-Sanction for prosecution- Requirement of-Sanction granted by a cyclostyled order stating reasons for grant of sanction-Whether valid in law-Held, yes. Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Section 16-Scope of qualDisposing of the appeals, this Court HELD : 1. The analysis report and the other pertinent material in connection therewith have been placed before the sanctioning authority. After going through the material, sanction was granted for laving theClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
43M/S. MURLIDHAR SHYAMLAL & ANR. Vs. STATE OF ASSAMCoram: RAMASWAMY, K.18/01/1996Food Adulteration Act, 1954/Food Adulteration Rules, 1956 : S. 7, 19(2)/Rule 12-A-Article of food stored for sale-Found adulterated- Liability for prosecution-Vendor could be absolved from the liability if he could prove that he purchased the arClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
44SRI KRISHAN GOPAL SHARMA ANR. Vs. GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHICoram: RAY, G.N. (J)07/05/1996Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 : Rule 47. Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner-Samples of-Contained saccharin to extent of 2000 and 2450 p.p.m. in violation of the then R.47-Criminal cases initiated against the accused-Subsequently R.47 amDisposing of the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. At the relevant time when the samples of the pan masala and the mouth freshner were taken, the saccharin content as found by the Public Analyst in the said articles of food was in violation of RuleClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
45M/S. PEPSI FOODS LTD. & ANR. Vs. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ORS.Coram: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA04/11/1997Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 226/227-Powers of High Court- Food Adulteration-Appellants-Name Lender to the beverage `Lehar Pepsi'-Report by Analyst-Fungus present-Complaint by the consumer before Magistrate-Summons issued to the appellanAllowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The High Court should not have adopted a rigid approach which certainly had led to miscarriage of justice in the present case. Power of judicial review is discretionary but this was a case where the HiClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgemen

Comments

Post a Comment