Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jan-29-1985
..... by the food inspector who was authorised by the proviso to take sample only from such a person.9. learned counsel relied on the decision in municipal corporation of delhi v. laxmi narain tandon : 1976crilj547 , in support of his contention. however, i am not impressed by the argument advanced that ..... why it was considered as a 'proviso' and therefore as an exception. my attention was also drawn by mr. bhattacharjee to a bench decision of punjab and haryana high court reported in (1982) 2 fac 167 : 1982 cri lj 1370, state of haryana v. rama nand. therein also no contention ..... of assam v. puranand 1985 cri lj 46 : (1984)2 gauhati lr 61, in construing a provision of the rules framed under the act, that the act being a measure enacted to protect public health its provisions are not to be construed pedantically in a manner as may make it impossible to ..... from 'damaged grain' and 'insect damaged grain'. because sale of adulterated processed food meant for human consumption is also sought to be prohibited by the act, different standards in respect of different items of such foods are also prescribed in appendix b. in case of processed food invariably different constituents comprise ..... or distributes any adulterated food or any misbranded food or carries on any of the other activites prohibited thereunder, commits an offence under the act and is punishable in terms of section 16 which prescribes different punishments for different species of the offences. that the chief ingredient of the offence .....Tag this Judgment!