SANKARAN NAIR
KESAVAN – Appellant
Versus
FOOD INSPECTOR – Respondent
1. Petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under S.2(ia)(a), S.2(ia)(c), S.2(ia)(m) S.7(i) read with R.44(b) and Appendix B.A11.01.11 in R.5 and S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The charge was that the sample of milk taken from the petitioner, was found to be adulterated. I do not propose to go into the facts because the case turns on a question of law, and counsel has not urged any other point. The Public Analyst found that the sample was adulterated. At the request of the petitioner a sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory and on Analysis it was found to be adulterated. There are however differences between the findings of the Public Analyst, and the Central Food Laboratory.
2. Counsel for petitioner submits that S.13(2)B has not been complied with. S.13(2)B of the Act requires that the court shall ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in clause.(b) of Sub-section (1) of S.11 are intact and the signature or thumb impression as the case may be are not tampered with, and that one of the parts of the sample under its own seal, should be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. According to counsel, this
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.