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

1964 Supreme(All) 171

S.N.KATJU
NAGAR SWATHA ADHIKARI, NAGAR MAHAPALIKA – Appellant
Versus
ANT RAM – Respondent


S. N. KATJU, J.

( 1 ) THE respondent was charged for the offence of selling or exposing Jalebi pre-pared in hydroginated vegetable oil for sale which was found to be coloured with a coal-tar-dye, namely orange II, which is not one of the coal-tar-dyes permitted for use in food stuffs. It was alleged that the respondent was liable for punishment under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act of 1954. The Food Inspector had purchased a sample from the respondent and divided it into three parts, one of which was given to the respondent and one part was sent to the public Analyst who found that it was coloured with coal-tar-dye Orange II. It was admitted that the quantity of the sample which was sent to the Public Analyst was II ounces. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that there was non-compliance of Rule 20 of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which under item (14) required that the approximate quantity to be taken should be 16 ounces. The Court below expressed the view that since the quantity of the sample was less than 16 ounces, therefore, an illegality had been committed and the respondent was entitled to get the benefit of







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