Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: prevention of food adulteration act 1954 Page 1 of about 4,790 results (0.091 seconds)

Jul 31 1969 (SC)

Dhian Singh Vs. Municipal Board, Saharanpur

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1970SC318; 1970CriLJ492; (1969)2SCC371; [1970]1SCR736

..... mahapalika of kanpur v. sri ram [1953] all. l.j. 765 wherein it is observed :that the report of the public analyst under section 13 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 need not contain the mode or particulars of analysis nor the test applied but should contain the result of analysis namely, data from which it can be inferred whether the ..... granted the sanction after applying its mind to those facts. the ratio of those decisions has no bearing on the facts of this case. under section 20 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954, no question of applying one's mind to the facts of the case before the institution of the complaint arises as the authority to be conferred under that provision ..... rule 7(3)report by the public analystreport no. 11652.i hereby certify that i, dr. r.s. srivastava, publicanalyst for uttar pradesh, duly appointed under theprovisions of the prevention of food adulteration act,1954, received on the 4th day of june 1963 from thefood inspector c/o medical officer of health, municipalboard, saharanpur, a sample of coloured sweet(patisa) prepared in vanaspati no. ..... board of saharanpur the complainant shown in the complaint is the municipal board of saharanpur but the complaint was signed by the food inspector. section 20 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 prescribes that no prosecution for an offence under that act should be instituted except by, or with the written consent of, the central government or the state government or a local .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 18 2002 (HC)

Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(2)BomCR698

..... ) (hereinafter referred to as 'the said act'), provides that every package of chewing tobacco shall bear a label to ..... prevention of food adulteration act, 1954. the order dated 23rd july 2002 reads thus:'commissioner, food and drug administration and food (health) authority, maharashtra state bandra kurla complex, bandra (east),mumbai 400 051.dated the 23rd july, 2002.orderprevention of food adulteration act, 1954.no. pfa/notification/574-2002/7. whereas rule 42(zzz) of the prevention of food adulteration rules, 1955, framed under the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 (37 of 1954 ..... health, such prohibition cannot be faulted.53. in view of the foregoing discussion, we summarise our conclusions thus:(i) section 7(iv) of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 is intra vires and the contention that the said section 7(iv) is ultra vires for reasons: (a) lack of legislative competence; (b) ..... wherein it is stated that under the provisions of clause (iv) of section 7 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954, the food health authority, maharashtra, has the lawful authority to prohibit the sale of any article of food in the interest of public health, within the local area of the state of maharashtra, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 1959 (HC)

Municipal Board, Lucknow Vs. Ram Autar

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1960All119

..... of dimakuchi tea estate v. management of dimakuchi tea estate, air 1958 sc 353 followed the rule of interpretation mentioned above.15. we, therefore, feel that when the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954, was passed, it did not repeal the definition of 'local authority' as far as it related to the municipalities, cantonments and notified areas but accepted and confirmed the ..... .'we have, therefore, to interpret the word 'local area' and local authority in this background keeping in mind the definitions of the two terms given in the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954.13. we have carefully considered these two definitions and we have come to the conclusion that in order to reach a correct meaning these two definitions should be read ..... stage we would only like to point out that the definition of 'local authority' so far as 'the municipal board was concerned was reiterated and reaffirmed in the prevention of food adulteration act,1954. we will come to this point again after we have discussed certain other aspects which in our opinion must be considered before interpreting the statute.10. the dominant ..... went up in appeal and the learned additional sessions judge came to the conclusion that there was no proper prosecution within the meaning of section 20 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954, and so the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the opposite party.he came to this conclusion because the state government had not issued .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 2004 (SC)

Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2004SC4057; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)970; 2005(1)BomCR194; JT2004(6)SC179; (2004)4MLJ67(SC); 2004(6)SCALE388; (2004)7SCC68; 2004(2)LC1449(SC)

..... 7(iv) was never in danger as it could be supported on the doctrine of pith and substance. he contends that in pith and substance the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 deals with the subject of adulteration, though, incidentally, by reason of section 7(iv) it may make an incursion into the domain of 'public health' which is the exclusive province ..... for maintenance and development of health of human being. in p.k. tejani v. m.r dange, : 1974crilj313 , a case arising under the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 this court held that the word 'food' is a very general terras and applies to all that is eaten by men for nourishment and takes in also subsidiaries. since pan masala, gutka ..... judgment3. the common issue raised for consideration of this court in all these cases is the validity of notifications issued by the food (health) authority under section 7(iv) of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') by which the manufacture, sale, storage and distribution of pan masala and gutka (pan masala containing tobacco) were banned for ..... and other tobacco products (prohibition of advertisement and regulation of trade and commerce, production, supply and distribution) act, 2003 are directly in conflict with the provisions of section 7(iv) of the prevention of food adulteration act 1954. the former act is a special act intended to deal with tobacco and tobacco products particularly, while the latter enactment is a general enactment. thus, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 1958 (HC)

In Re: S. Moses and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1959Mad185; 1959CriLJ608

..... calcutta high court with regard to a similar wording like the one used in the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954. 14. in the end, therefore, we hold that sections 7 and 16 of the prevention of fod adulteration act, 1954, will not primarily apply to the servant, the secondary seller of adulterated food, unless he sold it for his own benefit, and that the servant selling the ..... food on behalf of his master can only be made liable for aid or abetment of ..... such as the one in the present case is also liable under section 7 and section 16 of the prevention of food adulteration act, xxxvii of 1954. it is beyond question that under section 7 of the prevention of food adulteration act, xxxvii of 1954, the master is liable for selling goods either by himself or through his servant or any agent, for the matter of that ..... of a country are enacted by an enlightened legislature to suit the conditions of that country. therefore, in our opinion, the prevention of food adulteration act of 1954 has deliberately refrained from enacting the wide provisions of the food and drugs act of england, and has restricted the fixation of absolute liability to persons like master, the primary sellers, who are expected to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 2000 (HC)

Pannalal Sunderlal Choksi and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (2001)1BOMLR349; 2000CriLJ4442; 2000(4)MhLj674

..... was in charge of and also responsible to the conduct of the business of the company, at the time of contravention of the provisions of drugs and cosmetics act, 1940, and prevention of food adulteration act, 1954, is on the prosecution. if it is shown that a particular director has overall control over the day-to-day business of the company and he participates ..... company and the firm. if this element is present then only the directors of the company are responsible for the contravention of the provisions of drugs and cosmetics act of 1940, and prevention of food adulteration act, 1954. 23. in case of state of haryana v. brij lal mittal and ors., (cited supra), high court quashed the prosecution launched against the directors of the ..... are carefully read, there is no manner of doubt that the vicarious liability of a person for being prosecuted for an offence committed under the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940, and prevention of food adulteration act, 1954, by a company arises if, at the relevant time, he was in charge of and was also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. ..... oil in contravention of section 7(i) read with sections 2(ia)(a). 2(ia)(m) and 2(ia)(h) punishable under section 16 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954. (hereinafter referred to as the said act. 1954). the learned judicial magistrate, bhusawal, issued summons to the accused persons, including the present petitioners. 13. shri gopal digambarrao pathak has filed affidavit in reply. .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 1967 (HC)

Manilal R. Pandya Vs. Chimanlal Parshottamdas and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1968Guj80

..... january 1959. it stated:'the following draft of a notification which it is proposed to issue in exercise of the powers conferred by section 24 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 (37 of 1954), is hereby published as required by sub-section (1) of the said section 24 for the information of all persons likely to be affected thereby and ..... the matter before us, the question has arisen as to whether the state government can be said to have made the gujarat prevention of food adulteration rules, 1961 in compliance with the provisions of section 24 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 which enjoins previous publication of draft rules. so there is no dispute that s. 24 is sought to be enforced in ..... magistrate, 6th court, ahmedabad discharging the opponent no. 1 of the charge of having committed an offence under section (16) (1) (a) (ii) of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 (hereafter referred to as 'the act') on the ground that the gujarat prevention of food adulteration rules, 1961 were not valid as they were not previously published as required by section 24 of the said ..... the 23rd of august 1961, the state of gujarat issued a notification and published the gujarat prevention of food adulteration rules, 1961. the preamble of the notification may be stated:'in exercise of the powers conferred by section 24 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 ( 37 of 1954) and of all other powers enabling it in this behalf and in suppression of all rules .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 1969 (HC)

Dhirajlal Valji Kotak Vs. Ramchandra Janglaji Gujar and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1970Bom290; (1970)72BOMLR436; 1970CriLJ1062; ILR1970Bom1074; 1970MhLJ93

..... asked for a sample of kesari dal or lakh dal, purchased 750 grams of it and took action in terms of section 11 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to ag the act). he divided the sample into three parts and packed each part as prescribed. when one of the packets was sent for analysis, it was found that the article purchased ..... , we have modified it as follows:(1) whether the definition of 'sale' contained in section 2(xiii) of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954, is confined to the sale of articles of food for human consumption alone or extends to the sale of an article of food regardless of the use to which it is put?we have referred to the 'use' because that is the ..... for our decision as follows:(1) whether the definition of 'sale' contained in section 2(xiii) of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954, is confined to the sale of articles of food for human consumption or human use alone or extends to the sale of an article of food regardless of the purpose for which it is sold ? (2) whether the word 'sale' used in. rule ..... 44-a of the prevention of food adulteration rules, 1955, is used in its general sense or in the restricted sense, meaning .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 1968 (HC)

B.A. Sawant Vs. State

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1969Bom353; (1968)70BOMLR794; 1969CriLJ1344; ILR1968Bom1305

..... the empty bottles.9. for appreciating the contentions raised by mr., peerbhoy it is necessary, first, to consider the relevant sections and the rules under the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 and the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 and the prevention of food adulteration rules 1955, section 7, in so far as it is material, states that no person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale ..... and sentence passed by the learned presidency magistrate, 11th court, kurla, bombay under s. 16(1)(a)(i) of prevention of food adulteration act. 1954 read with section 7(i) of the said act and rule 5-a 11-01-02 of appendix b to the prevention of food adulteration rules, 1955.2. the prosecution was started on a complaint filed by the medical officer of health l and ..... duties under section 10(7) and r. 14 may not necessarily result in vitiating the trial. but they certainly affect his credibility a food inspector, who does not care to follow strictly the mandatory provisions of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 and the rules with which he is vitally concerned cannot be assumed to have much regard for truth. even supposing that he may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 18 2006 (HC)

Hyderabad Beverages Private Limited Etc. Vs. State of A.P.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2006CriLJ3988

..... are alleged to have committed offences under sections 7(1) and 2(ia)(m) of the prevention of food adulteration act 1954 and rule 50 of prevention of food adulteration rules, 1955, liable for punishment under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the prevention of food adulteration act 1954. petitioners would contend that the mineral water was packed in the month of march 1999, that ..... to the relevant statutory provisions, the rules and the judgments under each of these enactments separately.prevention of food adulteration act14. section 2(ia) of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 defines 'adulterated' to mean:(ia) 'adulterated'-an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated-(a) if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or ..... the label, affixed on the sample bottles, clearly indicated 'use before six months from the date of manufacture' which meant that the contents of the bottle were required to be used within that period, that explanation viii under rule 32 of the prevention of food adulteration ..... petitioner for offences under section 10(1)(a)(i), 7(11) and 2(ix)(a)(e) of the prevention of food adulteration act. this court held thus:.the prevention of food adulteration act is made with an object to prevent the adulteration to the maximum extent possible and in that context heavy penalties are imposed for the offences under the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //