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

1971 Supreme(Ker) 36

K.SADASIVAN
GOPINATHAN NAIR – Appellant
Versus
PALANI – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. This appeal is by the complainant against acquittal. The accused were prosecuted by the complainant (Food Inspector, Kottayam Municipality) under S.16(1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (shortly stated the Act) for selling adulterated cow's milk. 700 milli-litres of milk offered for sale by the accused's co-operative society was purchased by the complainant at 7-20 a.m. on 3-2-70 on payment of a price of 84 paise. It was then divided into three parts as required by the Rules and 16 drops of formalin were poured into each part and bottled. On analysis by the Public Analyst it was found that the milk contained 18% of added water. Milk fat found was 3.5% and milk solids-not-fat 6.9%. On further analysis by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, the result obtained was milk fat 5.0%, and milk solids-not-fat 8.2%. The Public Analyst as well as the Director of Central Food Laboratory have opined that the sample is adulterated. According to the Public Analyst the sample is adulterated, because it does not conform to the standard prescribed for cow's milk under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (shortly stated the Rules). The analyst is furt































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