SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(SC) 316

M.HIDAYATULLAH, V.BHARGAVA
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Ghisa Ram – Respondent


Advocates:
A.C.RATNAPARKHI, FRANK ANTHONY, GHANSHYAM DAS, H.R.Cokhale, JITENDRA SHARMA, K.K.RAIZADA, V.P.Chaudhary

Judgment

BHARGAVA, J. : The respondent, Ghisa Ram, is a Halwai dealing in milk and milk products, including Dahi, and holds a licence for running his shop in Defence Colony in New Delhi. On September 20, 1961, the Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi visited the shop of the respondent and took a sample of curd of cow s milk for the purpose of testing whether there was any adulteration. The curd was churned and divided into three equal parts. Each part was put in a separate bottle and sealed by the Food Inspector. One of the bottles containing the sample of the curd taken was handed over to the respondent. Out of the two remaining samples with the Food Inspector, one was sent to the Public Analyst who carried out the analysis on October 3, 1961. He then gave a certificate on October 23 1961, in which he noted that the fat content in the curd was 11.6 per cent and the non-fatty solids were 7.3 per cent. The standard prescribed by the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (No. 37 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to a the Act ,) for curd of cow s milk was that it must contain a minimum of 3.5 per cent fat and 8.5 per cent non-fatty solids. Since













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top