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

1939 Supreme(Mad) 5

PANDRANG ROW


ORDER

Pandrang Row, J.

1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 5, Clause 1(d) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act III of 1918 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. The petitioner is the proprietor of a Coffee Hotel at Vellore and the prosecution relates to a certain sweetmeat called kajoor which was prepared and sold at the hotel by the petitioner through his servants. The sample that was analysed was found to contain 80 per cent, of fat not derived from milk or cream. The prosecution assumed and the Magistrate seems to have acted on the same assumption that merely because the sweetmeat was found to contain 80 per cent, of fat not derived from milk or cream it amounts to adulteration which is prohibited by the Act. The particular sweetmeat in question is not one of the articles of food in respect of which the Government have prescribed standards of purity or determined the normal constituents thereof, and it cannot be said that there is any room afforded for raising a presumption that the article of food is not genuine or is injurious. It is conceded by the learned Public Prosecutor that no such action has been taken by the Local Governm

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