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

1963 Supreme(P&H) 228

P.D.SHARMA, R.P.KHOSLA
Mela Singh Sohan Mal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Judgment

P.D.Sharma, J.

1. Ram Parkash Food Inspector, Municipal Committee, Amritsar, on 13th September. 1961, purchased a sample of mixed milk buffalo and cow according to rules from Mela Singh accused-petitioner and sent the same to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst in his report dated 14th September 1961, certified that the said sample contained milk fat 5.2 per cent and milk solids not fat 8.2 per cent instead of 8.5 per cent and so in his opinion the sample was adulterated with water to an extent of about 3 per cent. The Food Inspector on the basis of this report lodged a complaint under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also mentioned therein that the accused had previously been convicted under the same provision of law and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300.00 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.

This came up for hearing before Shri Gian Singh Chambial, Magistrate First Class, Amritsar. The accused before him contended that he sold cow milk and not mixed milk of cow and buffalo. The learned Magistrate however, found the complaint as correct and, consequently, convict











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