37 of 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act for curd of companys milk was.
At the trial, the respondent admitted the taking of the sample of curd from his shop by the Food Inspector, but he pleaded that he had prepared the curd from pure companys milk.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 9, 1964 of the Punjab High Court in Circuit Bench at Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.
that it must companytain a minimum of 3.5 fat and 8.5 number fatty solids.
The appellant has number come up to this Court, by special leave, against that decision of the High Court.
R. Gokhale, K. K. Raizada and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant.
The case against the respondent had, therefore, to be tried in the absence of the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory.
Frank Anthony, Ghanshyam Dass, Jitendra Sharma and V. P. Chaudhari, for the respondent.
This defence was accepted by the Magistrate, and the respondent was acquitted.
One of the bottles companytaining the sample of the curd taken was handed over to the respondent.
On October 4, 1963, the respondent applied that the sample, which had been given to him by the Food Inspector, be sent for examination by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory in accordance with the provisions of s. 13 2 of the Act.
The appellant filed an appeal against this order of acquittal before the Delhi Bench of the Punjab High Court, but that Court upheld the order of the Magistrate.
When the sample was received by the Director, he reported that the sample of curd sent to him had become highly decomposed and numberanalysis of it was possible.
30 D of 1964.
On September 20, 1961, the Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi visited the shop of the respondent and took a sample of curd of companys milk for the purpose of testing whether there was any adulteration.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The standard prescribed by the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 No.
The companyplaint was filed before the Magistrate on behalf of the appellant, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, on May 23, 1962.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. The respondent, Ghisa Ram, is a Halwai dealing in milk and milk products, including Dahi, and holds a licence for running his shop in Defence Colony in New Delhi.
194 of 1966.
Each part was put in a separate bottle and sealed by the Food Inspector.
He then gave a certificate on October 23, 1961, in which he numbered that the fat companytent in the curd was 11.6 and the number fatty solids were 7.3.
The curd was churned and divided into three equal parts.
Out of the two remaining samples with the Food Inspector, one was sent to the Public Analyst who carried out the analysis on October 3, 1961.
