| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 |
|
PDF |
| PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 |
PFA Act — S 13(2) — Non-compliance of — No prosecution was taken up for storing for sale, adulterated food — No opportunity was given to the accused to send the sample to C.A. — Held, the accused was deprived of his right to challenge the sample — Failure of the Prosecution to assign any reason for not prosecuting the accused — when sample was found adulterated — Acquittal. (Para 14) |
PDF |
| PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 |
PFA Act — S 14-A —Conviction under — No prosecution launched for the charge of storing for sale, adulterated food — Crucial Question — whether contravention of Section 14-A alone would attract penal action — Packed tins contained labels with clear name & address of manufacturer — Non explanation —regarding action taken by the food Inspector on getting the information through the label — Held, It was for the Food inspector to show that even though the name and address of manufacturer was shown on the label he required the information from the accused — Held, unless such requirement is established provisions of Section 14-A would not be attracted — Acquittal. (Para 14) |
PDF |
| PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 |
PFA Act — S 14-A — Vendor to disclose the name, etc., of the person from whom the article of food was purchased — Contravention of — Requirement u/s 14-A not proved — Held, prosecution could not duly establish that accused contravened the provisions of Section 14-A. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 |
PFA Act — S 16(1-C), 16(1)& 20 — Conviction under 16(1-C) & 16(1)— Distinct offence — Prohibition u/s 20 — If it is a distinct offence Section 20 prohibits the prosecution to be launched without sanction — For want of sanction distinct offences would not sustain— Acquittal. (Para 16) |
PDF |