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

1984 Supreme(Guj) 105

S.B.MAJMUDAR, R.A.MEHTA, P.SUBRAMONIAN POTI
PRAHLADBHAI AMBALAL PATEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: B.P.JOSHI, R.M.VIN

S. B. MAJMUDAR, J.

( 1 ) IN this group of revision applications a short question has been referred for our consideration. The said question reads as follows. Whether after the report of the Public Analyst gets superseded by the certificate of the Director Central Food Laboratory who examines the part of the sample of food article collected under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) it is open to the accused to plead that if there is any variance between the aforesaid two reports the prosecution must explain the said variance or otherwise fail. 7 before embarking upon the consideration of the question posed for our decision it will be advantageous to have a birds eye view of the relevant provisions of the statute governing the field. The Act has been enacted by the Parliament with a view to making provisions for prevention of adulteration of food. Sec 2 (v) defines food to mean any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes: (A) any article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food (b) any flavouring matter or condiment




















































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